Sharp as a Marble - I expect this from the anti-gun people

<< A scene from the main server room of UPS | Home | Did you know >>

NRA

But gun bills being blocked by the NRA? For being too pro gun?

So yesterday the NRA did the unthinkable. The lobbyist that the NRA sent to Iowa, sent one of his subordinates to Representative Sorenson and gave him an ultimatum: either help us with our bill (and we will make you a hero in Iowa) or we will help your opponent in the upcoming election.

That’s right, an NRA lobbyist said that he was going to try to defeat a pro-gun Representative like Sorenson because he’s too………….pro-gun.

And, the opponent that Sorenson has in his upcoming election is a notorious anti-gunner!!!
So the NRA is willing to support an anti-gunner over pro-gun Representative Kent Sorenson just because he does not like the details of the NRA bill.

Now, I must preface my complaint with the notion that I do not have all the facts. This isn't local to me, so I don't have the time nor the inclination to truly follow up on this, but these kinds of tactics are not unknown to me from the NRA. I wasn't too thrilled with their involvement here in the Commuter Protection Act (or whatever the hell it was called), and I've heard several similar stories over the years regarding the NRA's penchant for only wanting to push for watered down bills they absolutely can win.

Says Unix-Jedi (who brought this to my attention)

I've detailed in the past the NRA's PSH over the origination of shall-issue concealed carry - they only came around to it when it had been a winner for some time. And NRA fans and I have argued about Heller, and the NRA's attempts to derail that until again, it was a winner in the public eye. The "Katrina lawsuits" that the NRA joined (filed by the SAF) - and then took all the credit (and begging for donations), save in the next-to-last press release.

The NRA's not in the forefront of the fight - until it's obvious that the battle is being won there. Then they show up, and claim the credit. Or derail the attempts that they don't like, that they're scared of, that they fear might be used as ammunition against them.

That behavior, the spoiled-brat, scorched Earth, if I can't be in charge just cause, then take the ball and go home behavior is inappropriate for a organization ostensibly founded around an individual right.

I can understand the NRA wanting to ensure it keeps its winning image. I can understand a political entity (which in this case is more the NRA-ILA) to generally want to play it safe. But there are certain things, such as fundamental human rights, that do NOT warrant always going after the easy fruit.

And when you're the 800 lb. gorilla, there is nothing wrong with taking risks from time to time. It's like when you're playing poker. If you've got enough chips on the table, there's nothing wrong with trying to buy the pot from time to time. Just this weekend I pulled the 2nd largest pot in a game of Texas Hold 'Em with a pair of 2's.

However, it is this insistance that only the NRA way is right and that only the NRA should be listened to while producing watered down bills that sometimes makes me question my membership in the organization.

I'm willing to listen to other views on this, of course. If you have information that is not included in the linked story, then by all means let me know.

posted @ 3/29/2010 12:25:42 PM

Incoming Links

Gun Show Report at A Dixie Carpetbagger on 3/30/2010 9:15:39 AM

damnum absque injuria » And Then There Were Three on 4/17/2010 10:23:31 AM

damnum absque injuria » Eleventy on 4/29/2010 12:45:52 PM

Comments

aczarnowski says:

on 3/29/2010 4:48:38 PM

The "must be an NRA member" crap really pisses me off. I'm no longer an NRA member because of stuff like this, the constant barrage of OMG!!!11eleventy mailings, and their complete lack of understanding on how to communicate in the digital age.

SAF gets my money instead.

straightarrow says:

on 3/29/2010 7:45:54 PM

And your problem is what?? exactly?? Everybody with just one functioning brain cell knows the NRA is a sell-out and has been for a long time. Curing the problem reduces their dinner invitations with people "who count".

Fuck 'em. I have joined them twice. They have betrayed me waaaaaay more than that. When this membership expires they will never get another chance at me. The only way I wouldn't piss on LaPierre is if he was on fire

Xrlq says:

on 3/29/2010 11:53:35 PM

Sorry, but this rings bullshit to me. Sorenson opposes shall-issue because in La-La Land, you shouldn't need no steenkin' permit. Functionally, that's no better than opposing shall-issue because you don't want ordinary citizens carrying eeeevil guns. Face it, VT-style carry isn't viable in most parts of the country, and it's not a coincidence that the few states that have moved in that direction - first Alaska, and now apparently Arizona - both went shall-issue first. The only way Sorenson and his Shall Not Be Infringers will ever get what they claim to want in Iowa is if the bill they hate passes, first. Fire truck them.

straightarrow says:

on 3/30/2010 3:38:11 AM

just so you know there are more intelligent opinions and options than you generally seem aware of. For instance, NRA could have just stayed out of it if they didn't want to be associated with what they thought might be a defeat. Same thing they could have done with Heller.

But NOOooooo! They threaten to support a known enemy of all of us.

Uhhh, no. I don't think I want to keep seeing NRA getting cover for their betrayals.

How the Hell would you or they know what is viable when you're too chickenshit to try?

Robb Allen says:

on 3/30/2010 8:17:07 AM

Xrlq, I'm going to disagree about the viability.

How many crooks do not carry a gun because it would be illegal? I don't see the licensing requirement as an effective deterrent to crime any more than I see drivers licenses a deterrent to DUIs. The best I see them is a part of a system of 'gotchas' so that you can have just one more thing to try to pin on people. Sure, you have nothing on the thug walking down the street so we can at least get him for a gun.

The problem of course is that ensnares the innocent as well.

Regardless of the viability of the law, why would the NRA threaten to give backing to someone who would harm gun rights rather than just say "We're staying out of this"?

I am genuinely curious about that. I don't see the advantage of doing so.

Xrlq says:

on 3/30/2010 8:48:19 AM

My reference to viability was to political viability, not necessariliy viability in practice once the policy is enacted. If Sorenson is serious about advancing gun rights, he should quit grandstanding, throw his support behind the current bill (which, for all its faults, would be a massive improvement from the status quo), and then push his pet reform later. That's the only way *any* state has changed its laws to achieve the results Sorenson claims to want. Refusing to support the good because it's not perfect doesn't make Sorenson "too pro-gun," it makes him an idiot. More specifically, it makes him a useful idiot for those who don't want Iowa to go RTC and a worse-than-useless one for those of us who do.

I don't know anything about Sorenson's opponent. Do you? It would be a bummer if he's truly anti-gun but I'm not going to assume he is just because a GOA affiliate says so. If GOA told me that water is wet I'd conduct a few lab experiments of my own just to be sure.

Stuart the Viking says:

on 3/30/2010 9:21:43 AM

I agree with Rob on this one. The NRA should NEVER back someone who would harm gun rights. I say call them on it. If they do indeed back the anti, then we know that the NRA has turned coat and needs and ethic cleansing.

s

Tam says:

on 3/30/2010 3:34:05 PM

Damn, it really sucks that they only let me be a member of one pro-gun org.

In a perfect world, they'd let me send money to a bunch of different ones.

Robb Allen says:

on 3/30/2010 3:46:22 PM

In a perfect world, they'd let me send money to a bunch of different ones.

Alas, it makes no sense to send dues to the NRA AND the GOA. It kinda cancels itself out ;)

Xrlq says:

on 3/30/2010 5:38:54 PM

Stuart, aside from the lack of evidence that the NRA has threatened to back Mark Davitt over that dimbulb Sorenson (and no, allegations by GOA are not "evidence" of anything), where is the evidence that Davitt is a "notorious anti-gunner!!!eleventy!" A Google search for "Mark Davitt" "gun control" turns up nothing.

Robb: sending money to GOA cancels out having earned such money. It doesn't cancel out your donation to the NRA, though, which is money well spent.

straightarrow says:

on 3/30/2010 6:29:11 PM

Ok, go here and listen XRLQ.

Listen to an interview between Steve Deace of WHO radio and Rep. Sorenson.

http://between-two-rivers.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-should-be-end-of-nra-in-iowa.html

Courtesy of Between Two Rivers website. you should look in on him. Iowa is a pretty good microcosm of the nation.

Tam says:

on 3/30/2010 8:56:15 PM

Alas, it makes no sense to send dues to the NRA AND the GOA. It kinda cancels itself out ;)

Only about a third of the time. :p

Unix-Jedi says:

on 3/31/2010 12:37:28 PM

Xrlq:

Sorry, but this rings bullshit to me.

Obviously, not to me, but then, this is because I've seen it from the NRA before. Many times.
That doesn't mean it is bullshit - but it means I'm going to lean that way until proven otherwise.

Sorenson opposes shall-issue because in La-La Land, you shouldn't need no steenkin' permit. Functionally, that's no better than opposing shall-issue because you don't want ordinary citizens carrying eeeevil guns. Face it, VT-style carry isn't viable in most parts of the country, and it's not a coincidence that the few states that have moved in that direction - first Alaska, and now apparently Arizona - both went shall-issue first. The only way Sorenson and his Shall Not Be Infringers will ever get what they claim to want in Iowa is if the bill they hate passes, first. Fire truck them.

I had to quote it all, because it makes little sense, and even less if you try and pull from it.
What?

because in La-La Land, you shouldn't need no steenkin' permit.

You, uh, shouldn't. Your sneering condescension of a man for standing up for less government intrusion, and in an area where their intrusion only dates back about 40 years (with some reversals starting back 20 or so years ago) makes no real sense. Unless you're in favor of the government intervention. Which, I suppose, is possible, but unusual.

Personally, there should be no reason I should have to beg permission to carry in public any more than I have to beg permission to write or speak. Even if the speech permission is "shall issue."

Nor does it explain the NRA's opposition.

Strategically, you could be right about which bill is "better". (If I'm reading you correctly, but I've still no idea what "fire truck them" means.) But apparently the bill the NRA doesn't like is doing very well - better than their pet bill.

But that brings us to the crux of the matter, something we've seen many times before. The NRA will push, and burn bridges, for THEIR bill (which is always more "moderate" and "middle of the road"), rather than let the chips fall where they may.

That should never be their function. It's fine to have a different idea. To argue for your idea. But that's not the NRA's MO for the last 20 years - it's THEIR WAY OR NO WAY.

There's no reason to threaten anyone else, or to try and derail OTHER ideas. None. Whatsoever. Not if your goal is indeed to protect gun owner rights and the 2nd Amendment.

If Sorenson is serious about advancing gun rights, he should quit grandstanding, throw his support behind the current bill (which, for all its faults, would be a massive improvement from the status quo), and then push his pet reform later.

Just for the sake of argument, what he he believes in what he's saying, and he's not "grandstanding"?

What if he wants to not try and fight this, again, later? What if he expects the NRA to ignore them, or to fight him later?

I understand political realities, and the concept of gradual change. But I also understand the political reality of "if you don't get it now, you'll never get it." Once the law's in, well, tough, that's what it is. Ask Florida about Open Carry. (And note that what you just said is the exact OPPOSITE reason that the NRA pushed hard, and pulled strings, to kill concealed carry in IL - because they didn't want the bill going forward without preemption. They (then) would rather kill a bill with good support, but flawed, rather than pass it with the flaws which (they said then) would be very hard to fix later.)

What's the slander about the GOA for? I don't see a single mention of GOA anywhere in the referenced report.

Also, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Alaska, I think they went "Shall issue" long after they didn't have *any* law on it, but that was merely for states that required the government permissions slip to reciprocate. But if you've got some evidence to the contrary, it's possible I'm remembering that incorrectly.

But in the meantime, I've seen this behavior by the NRA a fair bit in the past. Enough that I'm giving the story a "sounds completely credible" to me. It may not be - this might be someone making it up.

But the past history of the NRA political lobbying has a long track record of similar stunts - it's not the fault of the villagers to not come running when the boy shout's "Wolf".

Xrlq says:

on 3/31/2010 9:47:25 PM

They say that seeing is believing, but they are wrong. Believing is seeing. From a purely objective standpoint, the only thing we've both "seen" for the last 20 years is a pattern of the NRA doing what it does, and GOA types whining about them being phonies and sellouts. That, plus a pattern of you believing such allegations, while I perceive them as whiny bullshit. So it's no surprise that the latest incarnation is presumptively truth to you and bullshit to me.

You, uh, shouldn't. Your sneering condescension of a man for standing up for less government intrusion, and in an area where their intrusion only dates back about 40 years (with some reversals starting back 20 or so years ago) makes no real sense.

It's also factually way off the mark. Texas's ban on concealed carry dates back to 1871, and several states' RKBA provisions from that period expressly exclude concealed carry from protection. Forty years ago, "may-issue" was the norm, with outright bans on concealed carry almost everywhere else. Today shall-issue is the rule almost everywhere except Iowa, and now that looks to be changing too, no thanks to Kent "Too Pro Gun To Actually Do Any Good" Sorenson. To call that development an "intrusion" is downright Orwellian. Today's gun laws may not be a gun owner's dream, but they run circles around the laws we had 40 (or 50, or 60, etc.) years ago.

Unless you're in favor of the government intervention. Which, I suppose, is possible, but unusual.

Advocating a license for concealed carry is not at all unusual; thanks largely to that evil NRA (and no thanks at all to the "30 years of no compromise and as much in the way of results" GOA) it's now the law in a solid majority of states. Oh wait, I forgot that allowing citizens to carry with a non-discretionary permit is an "intrusion," even though forbidding them to carry under any circumstances somehow is not. Never mind.

Personally, there should be no reason I should have to beg permission to carry in public any more than I have to beg permission to write or speak.

I agree. That's what the NRA bill has changed in dozens of states already, and is about to do in Iowa in spite of this "too pro-gun" jackass's best efforts. If he were truly pro-gun it would be *because* of them.

Even if the speech permission is "shall issue."

Now we're back to Orwell. You "beg" permission in a may-issue environment. Once the law changes to shall-issue, applicants for a license aren't *asking* the cops anymore; they're *telling* them.

By your logic, if we allow the FCC to license radio stations, then we might as well let them license radio stations that promise to say what the government wants us to hear, and revoke all the licenses of those that don't.

Nor does it explain the NRA's opposition.

You seem to be having comprehension problems so I'll type this really, really slow. Sorenson opposes a bill the NRA supports. Assuming you believe Sorenson and GOA's accounts (we haven't heard anyone else's side yet), the NRA has told him that if he doesn't support the NRA-backed bill and his opponent does support the NRA-backed bill, they might back the NRA-backed-bill-backing candidate over the NRA-backed-bill-opposing one. I know it's hard to understand why any advocacy group might throw their support behind the candidate who supports their bill and against the one who opposes it, but trust me, it happens every day.

Strategically, you could be right about which bill is "better". (If I'm reading you correctly, but I've still no idea what "fire truck them" means.)

Hint: there are a few extra letters in there to make the phrase sound more family-friendly than it really is.

But apparently the bill the NRA doesn't like is doing very well - better than their pet bill.

Help me out with your Orwellspeak: does "apparently" mean "I have no idea what the frack I'm talking about so I'll just throw this out and see what sticks?" Because I'm having trouble thinking of any other possible definition of "apparently" that makes sense given that the NRA backed bill passed both houses overwhelmingly while Sorenson's is ... where, exactly?

There's no reason to threaten anyone else, or to try and derail OTHER ideas. None. Whatsoever. Not if your goal is indeed to protect gun owner rights and the 2nd Amendment.

Hogwash. There's every reason to support those who vote with the pro-gunners and oppose those who vote with the anti-gunners, which is exactly what the NRA is doing here. It doesn't matter whether Sorenson voted against RTC because he privately and naively hopes for something stronger to pass, while everyone else who voted no did so because they oppose RTC in all forms. A no vote is a no vote.

Just for the sake of argument, what he he believes in what he's saying, and he's not "grandstanding"?

That's a false choice. Whether he believes his own argument or not, he's still grandstanding by opposing a bill he himself admits to be an improvement over the current law. No state has ever gone to the policy Sorenson claims to support by following the path Sorenson advocates. If he were serious about accomplishing what he claims he wants to accomplish, rather than making himself into some kind of martyr, he'd steal a page from the AK and AZ playbooks and support this bill as an interim measure. Fortunately, it's all but certain to become law in spite of Mr. "too pro-gun" and his objectively anti-gun posturing.

What if he wants to not try and fight this, again, later?

Then he's an even bigger idiot than I thought. Either way, he doesn't belong in the legislature.

I understand political realities, and the concept of gradual change.

Actually, no, you don't. If you did you'd understand that even if VT-style carry really is the panacea you make it out to be, the only smart way to try to get there is the same way that others have done so successfully in the past. And that's not counting the many other states which had a huge legislative fight over going shall issue first, only to improve their shall issue policies later with little or no fanfare.

(And note that what you just said is the exact OPPOSITE reason that the NRA pushed hard, and pulled strings, to kill concealed carry in IL - because they didn't want the bill going forward without preemption. They (then) would rather kill a bill with good support, but flawed, rather than pass it with the flaws which (they said then) would be very hard to fix later.

I'd like a source for that. This is the first I've heard of NRA opposing any (permissive) concealed carry law in IL, or for that matter, of such a law ever having been viable in the first place.

What's the slander about the GOA for? I don't see a single mention of GOA anywhere in the referenced report.

Back to Orwellspeak, I see, but FYI, truthful statements have not been considered "slander" since the days of John Peter Zenger (technically a libel case but never mind that). If you read the "report" a bit more carefully, you'd see it was just a propaganda piece from their local chapter, Iowa Gun Owners. Even if you didn't recognize the name, the fact that they described the RTC law's proponents as "anti-gun" ought to have tipped you off to the fact that something was amiss.

Also, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Alaska, I think they went "Shall issue" long after they didn't have *any* law on it, but that was merely for states that required the government permissions slip to reciprocate. But if you've got some evidence to the contrary, it's possible I'm remembering that incorrectly.

So far you've gotten just about every fact wrong that you possibly COULD have gotten wrong, so why stop here? In fact, Alaska was a shall-issue state for many years, with some improvements passed over Gov. Knowles's veto, but it didn't go permit-optional until 2003. The only state that has Vermont-style carry as a result of never having had laws on point in the first place is Vermont itself. None have gone there directly from may-issue, but I'm sure you, Sorenson and your no compromise/results friends at GOA know better.

But the past history of the NRA political lobbying has a long track record of similar stunts - it's not the fault of the villagers to not come running when the boy shout's "Wolf".

Dude. Ever heard of projection? It's the nuts who call RTC supporters "anti-gun" and RTC opponents (whatever the reason, the result is the same) "too pro-gun" who have been crying wolf for the past 30 years, while the NRA you keep whining about has been the ones keeping the real wolves at bay.

Unix-Jedi says:

on 4/1/2010 1:18:19 AM

From a purely objective standpoint,

Which isn't what's coming from you.

the only thing we've both "seen" for the last 20 years is a pattern of the NRA doing what it does, and GOA types whining about them being phonies and sellouts. That, plus a pattern of you believing such allegations, while I perceive them as whiny bullshit.

No.

I've seen it, myself.
You can insist on perceiving it however you'd like - it's a personal problem. Yours.
It's not factual, it's not even close to being "Objective", and it requires you to deliberately obfuscate the real facts, and deny the real events.

So it's no surprise that the latest incarnation is presumptively truth to you and bullshit to me.

It fits a pattern. One that you're intentionally being obtuse about.

Forty years ago...

Let me ask you this. How many prosecutions and convictions were made for the illegal (concealed) carry of weapons?
It may have been illegal, and there are other issues that have grown up with the growth of the police and prosecution power.

But of the people of my acquaintance of my father's age and above, not a single one even considered not carrying a gun when they felt like it, until the mid-60s. Nor did the police tell them they couldn't. They didn't worry about arrests, because it wasn't an issue.

thanks largely to that evil NRA (and no thanks at all to the "30 years of no compromise and as much in the way of results" GOA) it's now the law in a solid majority of states.

And this is only true after the "evil NRA" attempted in fear to derail Florida, South Carolina and other's reforms. I pointed this out, and you had to intentionally skip it.

The NRA was not on the forefront of concealed carry. They're still not. Claiming they are, while you're tossing terms like "hogwash" at me is incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Because it's bullshit. It's what I was talking about, and what you're sidestepping.

Actually, no, you don't. If you did you'd understand that even if VT-style carry really is the panacea you make it out to be,

Wait, what? I never said anything about VT-type carry, I never called it a panacea. I'm irritated because the NRA is again (reportedly) strong arming people in favor of their bill, and only their bill.

Back to Orwellspeak, I see

Who's the one who changed the opponent?
GOA isn't mentioned, and your personal prejudices aren't shared by everyone else.

So far you've gotten just about every fact wrong that you possibly COULD have gotten wrong, so why stop here?

You should be careful when throwing stones, and I admitted I hadn't kept up with Alaska.

You, on the other hand, have deliberately obfuscated NRA's opposition to shall-issue, and given them credit for it.

That's what gets my dander up. The NRA opposed it. Until it was a political winner, and even then, it took damn near 20 years to get them even to promote it publicly, and they still shy away from anything "controversial".

That's not even starting on their other issues - but if you can't bother to read me and respond, rather insisting on straw-manning and ad hom, then there's really not much else to say there.

You'll ignore the facts in favor of your story, and call me a fabulist.

This is the first I've heard of NRA opposing any (permissive) concealed carry law in IL, or for that matter, of such a law ever having been viable in the first place.

Then maybe, before writing that screed, you should have done some very basic googling. Or considered your position. After all, why bother with facts, you've made your mind up.

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/news//3-29.php
http://www.carmitimes.com/news/x1393577478/NRA-impeding-passage-of-concealed-carry

Guess they were just "grandstanding" too much.

I was working in the SC Statehouse when they were talking about changing to shall-issue like Florida.
A close relative was a Fl Legislator when they went shall-issue.

There's a reason I've not been a NRA member since the early 90s. Make up whatever other attacks you want on me, make up whatever strawmen.

My point has been, and remain, that the NRA's political arm (their range and other groups are superb, but sadly they're grouped together) is not standing on any principle other than to ensure their money, power, and influence are preserved. That's just as true now as it was 20 years ago. They're unwilling to share power, influence, or credit, and are quite willing to stomp all over kindred souls in order to claim those. (SAF lawsuits against the New Orleans authorities being the glaring case in point.)

That's my observation, and it's a damn sure closer to being from From a purely objective standpoint than yours.

Xrlq says:

on 4/1/2010 7:51:04 AM

Wow, you make some really compelling arguments there. Allow me to summarize:

The NRA's decision to remain neutral on a concealed carry bill in Illinois means they are against shall-issue. That, plus the fact that you used to work as a janitor in the SC statehouse and know some guy in Florida means you really, really, know that the NRA opposes shall-issue. Therefore, they should have backed the guy in Iowa who really does oppose shall-issue in favor of a pie in the sky no-permit option that has no realistic chance of passage. I get that.

What I don't get is why you're OK with concealed carry being a felony just about everywhere, but that's no big deal 'cuz your dad never worried about it and no one you know ever got prosecuted. If it is possible to "win" an argument by making a statement so incredibly stupid and myopic as to clarify beyond a shadow of doubt that you're impervious to reason, I think you've just pulled it off. Either that or you duped me with one of the best April Foolers I've seen in years.

Unix-Jedi says:

on 4/1/2010 10:29:14 AM

Allow me to summarize:

No, that's you lying through your teeth to avoid the rather nasty fact that the facts condemn, not support you. That's not even close to being an honest attempt to "summarize", it's a laughable attempt to insult me rather than deal with the issues brought up.

Speaking of projection....

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt - or was. But no, this is deliberate obfuscation for some reason to cover the NRA's tracks and history (and you have the irony to call _me_ "Orwellian".)

That, plus the fact that you used to work as a janitor in the SC statehouse and know some guy in Florida means you really, really, know that the NRA opposes shall-issue.

Nowhere near what I said. I was quite clear. And if you want to start tossing insults, either 1) get a lot better at it, 2) better get another line of work yourself.

What I don't get is why you're OK with concealed carry being a felony

You don't "get it" because you're not paying attention. I didn't say that. I'd explain, but you'd just distort again.
You're making up insults and smears rather than deal with the facts in front of you.

You're putting a lot of effort into making up stances for me, missing the point, and putting words in my mouth while demonstrating an incredible lack of pattern recognition.

It's almost like you know you've lost the argument and are unwilling to get off your high horse to admit it.

Which, really, is back to my point with the NRA, and what I really want them to fix.
And a perfect demonstration of why it's a forlorn hope.

Fact: The story reported fits a historical MO to a T. Does that make it true? I don't know. But I know that it's happened, I was there, your career insults aside, I've seen this multiple places before, and so it's totally believable.

Versus you who swear it's never, not once happened, it's total bullshit and would never happen and we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Hm.

straightarrow says:

on 4/3/2010 4:29:47 PM

I bet he didn't dare go anywhere near the link or radio interview I suggested with link.

Methinks he lies because he is not on the liberty side of the issue and I would not be a bit surprised to find he had a vested interest in the profitability of the NRA.

Comments have been closed on this topic.