Hats Off to George Bush

[JMohegan]

George H.W. Bush, in '95, that is.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html




And shame on anyone who still pays dues to that despicable organization today.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/leave-the-presidents-kids-out-of-it-86294.html?ml=co

 

[intothewoods]

Hi JM!

Well, now that DGE and JM have checked in, I think all Litizens are accounted for. Check that off my worry list!

Anyway, yay, Bush Sr.! Fuck the NRA. And especially the Newtown conspiracy theorists.

 

[JMohegan]

Hi JM!

Well, now that DGE and JM have checked in, I think all Litizens are accounted for. Check that off my worry list!

Hi, ITW. Very kind of you to worry, it really is.

Fuck the NRA.

Tip of the hat to Chris Christie.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/chris-christie-slams-nra-obama-daughters-ad-86365.html?hp=f3

 

[midwestyankee]

Sometimes Lawrence O'Donnell goes too far over the top, but last night he made a direct appeal to actor Tom Selleck, who is on the board of directors of the NRA, to resign following the model of George H. W. Bush. Good for him to put up some pressure.

HW seemed like a man caught in a light flood through most of his presidency: there was just enough pressure from his right to keep him from being the true moderate that he was but not enough that many of us thought he could have climbed out of that water if he had really had the desire. On the NRA move, though, he did the right thing.

 

[Netzach]

Sometimes Lawrence O'Donnell goes too far over the top, but last night he made a direct appeal to actor Tom Selleck, who is on the board of directors of the NRA, to resign following the model of George H. W. Bush. Good for him to put up some pressure.

HW seemed like a man caught in a light flood through most of his presidency: there was just enough pressure from his right to keep him from being the true moderate that he was but not enough that many of us thought he could have climbed out of that water if he had really had the desire. On the NRA move, though, he did the right thing.

He is looking better in the wake of history, for sure. I think if you're tuned in to Central American policy, however, it's wise not to get too caught up in the fact that Reagan gets more of the credit for Bush's work on Eastern Europe and Bush wasn't such a bad guy, last of the East Coast intellectual moderate 'pubs blah and blah.

I know everyone has dirt on his hands, it's just really dirty dirt.

The minute you start to feel really good about this stuff, remember El Mozote and who was in charge of what.

NRA has reached the point of intolerable douchebaggery at this juncture, but I don't think this ad is reason why, douchebag as it is.

 

[JMohegan]

I agree with both of you on HW, and also that pressuring celebrities like Selleck is good.

From my perspective, the NRA reached "intolerable douchebaggery" decades ago.

What I find myself wondering these days is when (if ever) the average "hey, I'm just here for the cool hunting tips in the magazine" member will have his/her own HW moment.

Selleck's a figurehead and yeah, I agree, NRA figureheads are pricks. But dare I suggest that any person who still pays NRA dues and allows his/her name to bolster NRA rolls is equally prickish?

 

[Shankara20]

Tip of the hat to Chris Christie.

I'm rather finding him refreshing...

 

[JMohegan]

I'm rather finding him refreshing...

Veto of an Obamacare Exchange wasn't exactly a high point, but yeah, there are times when I really do appreciate his rhetoric. He's so good at it, I sometimes think he just might ditch that "R" after his name in a fit of disgust.


Speaking of former Republicans...

Here's a classy lady.

 

[Homburg]

*facepalm*

Those kids are incredibly prominent targets solely by their parentage. They did not choose to be in the situation they're in. They do not simply need protection, they deserve it and we as a people have a duty to provide it.

There is not even the slightest reasonable explanation for why this ad happened. While I've not given a cent to the NRA in twenty years, I have had a life membership since I was young.

The problem is that their douchebaggery in no way changes the simple fact that they do more than any other organization to support and defend the second amendment, which is a mission that I agree with on the whole. While I may despise agreeing with assholes, it's like deciding to post in this thread, sometimes you hold your nose and carry on.

It bears thinking, certainly.

(And I have little to nothing positive to say about HW. I don't despise him, but I was not impressed.)

 

[JMohegan]

*facepalm*

Those kids are incredibly prominent targets solely by their parentage. They did not choose to be in the situation they're in. They do not simply need protection, they deserve it and we as a people have a duty to provide it.

There is not even the slightest reasonable explanation for why this ad happened. While I've not given a cent to the NRA in twenty years, I have had a life membership since I was young.

The problem is that their douchebaggery in no way changes the simple fact that they do more than any other organization to support and defend the second amendment, which is a mission that I agree with on the whole. While I may despise agreeing with assholes, it's like deciding to post in this thread, sometimes you hold your nose and carry on.

It bears thinking, certainly.

(And I have little to nothing positive to say about HW. I don't despise him, but I was not impressed.)

Can't say I know anyone who would vote to repeal the 2nd amendment.

It's all in the interpretation, as you know, surely. So let's set that straw man aside, shall we?

Is there an actual, tangible threat to your rights, as you perceive them, on the table? Something specific and actually under consideration by POTUS and/or Congress, that makes it worthwhile to keep your name on the rolls which bolster said douchebaggery?

 

[Homburg]

Can't say I know anyone who would vote to repeal the 2nd amendment.

It's all in the interpretation, as you know, surely. So let's set that straw man aside, shall we?

I have no real desire to discuss it further, thus the "hold my nose" portion of the previous post.

And there's no straw man in my post. Check your definitions.

Is there an actual, tangible threat to your rights, as you perceive them, on the table? Something specific and actually under consideration by POTUS and/or Congress, that makes it worthwhile to keep your name on the rolls which bolster said douchebaggery?

The major reason is the insurance policy that comes along with membership. And inertia. They were told to fuck off long ago, and haven't sent me a scrap of mail in better than a decade. Just haven't had sufficient reason to send in a letter making it official.

POTUS made me happy, overall, with the 23 Executive "actions". They were intelligent, well-considered, and moderate, all things I would say about Obama in general. I also noted that he said something rather surprising, and that was that he recognizes that the 2A protects an "individual right to keep and bear". In the gun control debate, the phrase "individual right" is a rather important one as it goes against the usual "collective right" reasoning used for years by those unfriendly to the concept. I assume it was a purposeful nod to those paying attention, but it helped my take on the topic.

Presuming no gun bans or violations of bills of attainder, I'm not aghast at what Obama said. I dislike some of it, by the same token, I well and truly despise the calls for insurrection from those on the fringes. And it is insurrection, not revolution. There are very specific differences between those words.

The first problem I have is a lack of sense vis a vis many of the proposals I'm seeing, and a base logic-fault with a lot of the knee-jerk reactions. That is not a constitutional challenge though, as we have seen other infringements on ownership before. So long as they follow precedent and don't go nuts, it will be a political fight, not a constitutional one. So while I dislike the lack of logical support behind 10rd magazine limits and such, they're political/logical issues, not constitutional ones.

The second, and more serious concern I have is noncompliance to draconian laws producing both (non-malicious/passive) criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens, and also the potentially massive cost in both liberty and money that will come about as a result of enforcement of draconian laws that might be on the table.

As to specifics, no interest in discussing it. Done it enough already, and don't feel like rehashing. I'm replying here because the ad pissed me off.

 

[JMohegan]

I have no real desire to discuss it further, thus the "hold my nose" portion of the previous post.

And there's no straw man in my post. Check your definitions.

Sure.

a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument.

The fabrication is the notion that the second amendment itself is under attack (and therefore needs defending).

The truth is that interpretations of the second amendment differ.

The major reason is the insurance policy that comes along with membership. And inertia. They were told to fuck off long ago, and haven't sent me a scrap of mail in better than a decade. Just haven't had sufficient reason to send in a letter making it official.

You had me curious, so I went to look.

http://www.nra.org/benefits.aspx

"Life members receive $10,000 of Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage at NO COST to you. The plan covers accidents at, or to and from, an NRA event; and accidents that occur during the use of firearms or hunting equipment while hunting. Insurance must be activated at time of upgrade to Life member status."

Strikes me as somewhat ironic!

POTUS made me happy, overall, with the 23 Executive "actions". They were intelligent, well-considered, and moderate, all things I would say about Obama in general. I also noted that he said something rather surprising, and that was that he recognizes that the 2A protects an "individual right to keep and bear". In the gun control debate, the phrase "individual right" is a rather important one as it goes against the usual "collective right" reasoning used for years by those unfriendly to the concept. I assume it was a purposeful nod to those paying attention, but it helped my take on the topic.

Presuming no gun bans or violations of bills of attainder, I'm not aghast at what Obama said. I dislike some of it, by the same token, I well and truly despise the calls for insurrection from those on the fringes. And it is insurrection, not revolution. There are very specific differences between those words.

Those calls for insurrection serve a purpose - though not what the callers intended.

They make the opponents of Obama's proposals appear fucking nuts to the average non-nutcase. And of course, they're great for fundraising.

The first problem I have is a lack of sense vis a vis many of the proposals I'm seeing, and a base logic-fault with a lot of the knee-jerk reactions. That is not a constitutional challenge though, as we have seen other infringements on ownership before. So long as they follow precedent and don't go nuts, it will be a political fight, not a constitutional one. So while I dislike the lack of logical support behind 10rd magazine limits and such, they're political/logical issues, not constitutional ones.

The second, and more serious concern I have is noncompliance to draconian laws producing both (non-malicious/passive) criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens, and also the potentially massive cost in both liberty and money that will come about as a result of enforcement of draconian laws that might be on the table.

As to specifics, no interest in discussing it. Done it enough already, and don't feel like rehashing. I'm replying here because the ad pissed me off.

No, the specifics I was asking for were the reasons you keep your name on the rolls of NRA members, despite your disgust with the organization's "douchebaggery." You answered with specifics: insurance policy + inertia.

Thank you for responding.

 

[Homburg]

Not worth it.

Thanks, JM.