It turns out that the cop who shot him, in fact, shot him three times from behind. Which sounds more like a summary execution.
Two years ago, Philandro Castile was summarily executed by a Minnesota cop for the crime of legally carrying a firearm while black.
So far, the National Rifle Association, which likes to style itself as a civil rights organization that protects the rights of lawful gun owners, has said....
...about either killing.
The cops have their own political groups and lobbyists. The NRA likes to say that they stand for the rights of gun owners. It's high time that they did.
While I'm on the subject of the NRA, I'd like to know just what they have gotten for their full-throttle support of Trump.
The bill to drop silencers from Title III (machineguns, etc) to Title 1 (firearms) has gone nowhere. The bill for nationwide CCW reciprocity has, likewise, gone nowhere. Trump has, in fact, shown himself to essentially be as willing to entertain off-the-cuff and nonsensical restrictions as Andrew Cuomo or Dan Malloy.
But what has the NRA to say about that?
7 comments:
Preach it, sister.
Didja catch my post a while back showing (via the WSJ) where the NRA steered contracts to businesses owned by ....directors of the NRA?
The more I learn, the less I like the NRA.
" The NRA likes to say that they stand for the rights of gun owners. It's high time that they did. "
Agreed.
B, I hadn't. It's a good post.
(Here's the link for anyone else who wants to read it. I recommend it.)
A common problem in big issues groups. I bailed on the NRA in the mid 90’s, as it became clear they had no answer to anything that wasn’t more guns in more hands. The current sub-crop of Second Amendment groups all suffer, in my opinion, from a similar myopic view that will not help gun owners long term.
For a long time there was no judicial trail for an individual right to bear arms, but the work of the NRA in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s finally reached fruition in the recent past with an individual right acknowledged, even as it is allowed to be restricted in a reasonable manner. As long as the NRA and its kin pursue the equivalent of the Japanese strategy in WWII, they will eventually meet their downfall. Newer, so called “anti-gun” groups, are popping up and growing strongly, and will likely continue to due to demographics and the increasing number of shootings. Not all of these groups should be viewed as injurious to gun owners, especially some that seek to engage rather than simply oppose...however, with the current us vs them mindset, this engagement will likely not occur. The NRA’s chickens coming home to roost are this situation, and we must see if any of the other “pro-gun” groups can step into the breech and provide leadership in time to avert the pendulum swing back against the Second Amendment.
CP88, the problem with the antis is that they are not willing to negotiate, beyond how many of the pro-gun right they will take away. That's not a negotiation, that's a surrender.
The NRA ran the hunter safety course I had to take when I was a kid before I could get my first hunting license. It didn't teach me anything I didn't already know, but that's because my dad already taught me before I got my own guns. The course seemed like it was quality instruction.
Do they even do that any more? I just looked it up and it seems like Fish and Wildlife is doing it here in California.
-Doug in Oakland
Comrade, that’s a broad generalization there, that I disagree with. However, I will certainly agree the loudest voices are unwilling to compromise, unfortunately because they most often have lost family members. This doesn’t excuse their position, but rather often explains it.
As long as those groups lead the charge, the NRA’s foundering won’t matter so much, but their extreme position will simply prolong the period before the pendulum swings back.
Perhaps a truly representative group of gun owners and supporters who wish both common sense protections and Second Amendment rights to coexist will finally arise, but I’m doubting it.
Post a Comment