7 ms·

I absolutely support gun rights, gun advocacy necessary to protect those rights, gun education, and gun safety. But elements of the NRA leadership have been ir

by D13Fd 6y ago

I absolutely support gun rights, gun advocacy necessary to protect those rights, gun education, and gun safety. But elements of the NRA leadership have been irretrievably corrupt for some time, in my opinion, and I tell them that every time they call to ask for a donation. I'm not paying for Wayne LaPierre's private jets.

schoolornot 6y ago
Wayne is the first thing that comes to mind when I hear NRA. Outrageous spending. Dammit.
syshum 6y ago
GOA, and Second Amendment Foundation have done most of the legal work in the big cases in the last few decades anyway... If you want to support Gun Rights, Support one or both of them
- technologist2 6y ago
  I thought about supporting both... but then I went to their websites to check them out and within seconds skipped out with a huge NOPE. GOA's top story was about how the seditionist Boebert is being treated unfairly by Pelosi. That's the exact same turdhole of dangerous partisanism that I bailed from the NRA a lifetime ago on. Same rejects that supported Trump cheered when he said "Take the guns away and worry about due process later". And then he did take firearm equipment away with an executive order, not legislation, not a bill, just whipped out his pen and blammo... gone.
pseudo0 6y ago
Yeah, the NRA still does some useful stuff at the local level (hunter education, NRA ranges, etc) but they really need new leadership. For the moment, GOA seems like the best alternative for advocacy efforts.
mc32 6y ago
All institutions suffer from inertial rot. Teamsters, UAW, NRA, ACLU, even EFF. Then there are the Federal Agencies and State agencies, especially the commissions. They need to be periodically replaced wholesale with new leadership. Else "interests" take over and the mission is secondary.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
  How have the ACLU and EFF suffered from inertial rot, in your opinion? Are there any smaller nonprofits that you know with similar mission statements?
  - soganess 6y ago
    I'm actually really interested in this as well. Those are the two largest orgs I hold in high esteem. I'd love to be corrected so I am not walking around like an oblivious fool.
  - mc32 6y ago
    They are not as bad as the rest up there. But the ACLU is populated by old timers. And from time to time they have vacillated so has the EFF. The EFF tried hard to placate Twitter and Facebook banning accounts on account that they are public companies and they could do as they pleased with regard to speech. That's not arguing for freedom. That's playing politics. Now Twitter feels free to ban things like Sci-Hub. And who knows who's next. That's the thing, if you don't stand for your principles, because you disagree with someone's politics, then you don't have principles, or at least not the right principles to defend the primary principle you are set up to defend. It's like saying you believe in due process upholding the law, but then a murderer comes around and you say, nope, sorry, I cannot defend murderer in court. If that's your stance, then you actually don't believe in due process and the law.
    - jhanschoo 6y ago
      > The EFF tried hard to placate Twitter and Facebook banning accounts on account that they are public companies and they could do as they pleased with regard to speech. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-response-social-media-companies-decision-block-president-trumps-accounts https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-response-social-me... > The decisions by Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and others to suspend and/or block President Trump’s communications via their platforms is a simple exercise of their rights, under the First Amendment and Section 230, to curate their sites. We support those rights. Nevertheless, we are always concerned when platforms take on the role of censors, which is why we continue to call on them to apply a human rights framework to those decisions. We also note that those same platforms have chosen, for years, to privilege some speakers—particularly governmental officials—over others, not just in the U.S., but in other countries as well. A platform should not apply one set of rules to most of its users, and then apply a more permissive set of rules to politicians and world leaders who are already immensely powerful. Instead, they should be precisely as judicious about removing the content of ordinary users as they have been to date regarding heads of state. Going forward, we call once again on the platforms to be more transparent and consistent in how they apply their rules—and we call on policymakers to find ways to foster competition so that users have numerous editorial options and policies from which to choose. This doesn't read like placating these companies to me. It affirms their general legal right (it can be more harmful to regulate this right if done incorrectly), and yet criticizes them for not properly wielding this right responsibly.
systemvoltage 6y ago
> I absolutely support gun rights What are some of the supporting reasons for gun rights? Last I heard from a heated coversation is that having a gun has no meaningful opposition to the government in this day and age. Good luck opposing the US military. Many nations around the world work well without it. What would happen if US bans all forms of guns and ammunitions and abolishes the 2nd amendment?
- D13Fd 6y ago
  I think it's foundational to the character of our nation. The United States has always been a free country and the right to bear arms is one of our core freedoms, alongside the first amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and free exercise of religion. I would never want to see any of those rights taken away. The societal costs of gun violence are just a price we pay for that freedom, and I think it's worth it. Edit: To answer the question about what happens if the U.S. were to ban guns, I'd say that we would lose one of the core freedoms that made us great.
  - skissane 6y ago
    Many Americans say they have more freedom than Australians, because (among other reasons) there are a lot more hoops to jump through in order to legally buy a gun in Australia than in the US (and the range of weapons you are legally allowed to buy having jumped through those steps are narrower, and the regulations around storage/carry/etc are more restrictive.) On the other hand, in the US the government (federally and in 28 states) has the right to kill you if it can get 12 jurors to say you've done something so bad you deserve to die. So, it seems Australians may not have the same right to own guns, but they have a greater right to life. Why count one right and ignore the other?
    - D13Fd 6y ago
      Capital punishment is not an issue of freedom, it's an issue of justice - another core American value. I don’t think capital punishment is the only way to have justice, but I see it as a different concern than freedom.

by D13Fd 6y ago

schoolornot 6y ago

Wayne is the first thing that comes to mind when I hear NRA. Outrageous spending. Dammit.

syshum 6y ago

GOA, and Second Amendment Foundation have done most of the legal work in the big cases in the last few decades anyway... If you want to support Gun Rights, Support one or both of them

technologist2 6y ago
I thought about supporting both... but then I went to their websites to check them out and within seconds skipped out with a huge NOPE. GOA's top story was about how the seditionist Boebert is being treated unfairly by Pelosi. That's the exact same turdhole of dangerous partisanism that I bailed from the NRA a lifetime ago on. Same rejects that supported Trump cheered when he said "Take the guns away and worry about due process later". And then he did take firearm equipment away with an executive order, not legislation, not a bill, just whipped out his pen and blammo... gone.

pseudo0 6y ago

Yeah, the NRA still does some useful stuff at the local level (hunter education, NRA ranges, etc) but they really need new leadership. For the moment, GOA seems like the best alternative for advocacy efforts.

mc32 6y ago

All institutions suffer from inertial rot. Teamsters, UAW, NRA, ACLU, even EFF. Then there are the Federal Agencies and State agencies, especially the commissions. They need to be periodically replaced wholesale with new leadership. Else "interests" take over and the mission is secondary.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
How have the ACLU and EFF suffered from inertial rot, in your opinion? Are there any smaller nonprofits that you know with similar mission statements?
- soganess 6y ago
  I'm actually really interested in this as well. Those are the two largest orgs I hold in high esteem. I'd love to be corrected so I am not walking around like an oblivious fool.
- mc32 6y ago
  They are not as bad as the rest up there. But the ACLU is populated by old timers. And from time to time they have vacillated so has the EFF. The EFF tried hard to placate Twitter and Facebook banning accounts on account that they are public companies and they could do as they pleased with regard to speech. That's not arguing for freedom. That's playing politics. Now Twitter feels free to ban things like Sci-Hub. And who knows who's next. That's the thing, if you don't stand for your principles, because you disagree with someone's politics, then you don't have principles, or at least not the right principles to defend the primary principle you are set up to defend. It's like saying you believe in due process upholding the law, but then a murderer comes around and you say, nope, sorry, I cannot defend murderer in court. If that's your stance, then you actually don't believe in due process and the law.
  - jhanschoo 6y ago
    > The EFF tried hard to placate Twitter and Facebook banning accounts on account that they are public companies and they could do as they pleased with regard to speech. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-response-social-media-companies-decision-block-president-trumps-accounts https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/eff-response-social-me... > The decisions by Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and others to suspend and/or block President Trump’s communications via their platforms is a simple exercise of their rights, under the First Amendment and Section 230, to curate their sites. We support those rights. Nevertheless, we are always concerned when platforms take on the role of censors, which is why we continue to call on them to apply a human rights framework to those decisions. We also note that those same platforms have chosen, for years, to privilege some speakers—particularly governmental officials—over others, not just in the U.S., but in other countries as well. A platform should not apply one set of rules to most of its users, and then apply a more permissive set of rules to politicians and world leaders who are already immensely powerful. Instead, they should be precisely as judicious about removing the content of ordinary users as they have been to date regarding heads of state. Going forward, we call once again on the platforms to be more transparent and consistent in how they apply their rules—and we call on policymakers to find ways to foster competition so that users have numerous editorial options and policies from which to choose. This doesn't read like placating these companies to me. It affirms their general legal right (it can be more harmful to regulate this right if done incorrectly), and yet criticizes them for not properly wielding this right responsibly.

systemvoltage 6y ago

> I absolutely support gun rights What are some of the supporting reasons for gun rights? Last I heard from a heated coversation is that having a gun has no meaningful opposition to the government in this day and age. Good luck opposing the US military. Many nations around the world work well without it. What would happen if US bans all forms of guns and ammunitions and abolishes the 2nd amendment?

D13Fd 6y ago
I think it's foundational to the character of our nation. The United States has always been a free country and the right to bear arms is one of our core freedoms, alongside the first amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and free exercise of religion. I would never want to see any of those rights taken away. The societal costs of gun violence are just a price we pay for that freedom, and I think it's worth it. Edit: To answer the question about what happens if the U.S. were to ban guns, I'd say that we would lose one of the core freedoms that made us great.
- skissane 6y ago
  Many Americans say they have more freedom than Australians, because (among other reasons) there are a lot more hoops to jump through in order to legally buy a gun in Australia than in the US (and the range of weapons you are legally allowed to buy having jumped through those steps are narrower, and the regulations around storage/carry/etc are more restrictive.) On the other hand, in the US the government (federally and in 28 states) has the right to kill you if it can get 12 jurors to say you've done something so bad you deserve to die. So, it seems Australians may not have the same right to own guns, but they have a greater right to life. Why count one right and ignore the other?
  - D13Fd 6y ago
    Capital punishment is not an issue of freedom, it's an issue of justice - another core American value. I don’t think capital punishment is the only way to have justice, but I see it as a different concern than freedom.