A blog I often enjoy and agree with (although I used to enjoy more and agree more often) has increasingly embraced a disturbing anti-liberty agenda on one small issue. But, with regard to liberty, is any issue truly small?
He asks a question of the NRA, which he says they refuse to answer.
Well, OK, I will answer for them, but he won't like my answer much.
"Can you produce credible data – not opinion, not anecdotes – something that can be independently validated, that 'amnesty' and a 'pathway to citizenship' for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and legally, with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners?
"Can you show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts?
"And can you demonstrate how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date?"
No. But it's a false choice: enforce government borders or enforce anti-gun "laws". Both are unethical, immoral, unconstitutional and a violation of natural human rights. It's the same as the false choice between enforcing borders to keep out "illegals" and keeping welfare going. Liberty isn't piecemeal, and you can't keep the bits of government you like ("borders", welfare) and get rid of the parts you don't like (BATFE, gun "laws").
This is also what happens when you allow people to v*te on other people's rights. That's never going to end well, no matter what unethical "laws" you enforce, using the justification that you are trying to prevent something else.
Again, when you allow government to exist, and to violate people's natural rights, you are going to get results such as this. You can whine about the reasons and results all day long, but until you address the root cause, you'll get nowhere.
Government is a violation of human rights- the right of association, property rights, the right to own and to carry any weapon you wish everywhere you go without ever getting government permission, the right to make an agreement with anyone to work for them, rent from them, buy from them, or visit them. Once you start letting government bullies ration and violate these rights, you can't be shocked when they don't stop there.
Rights are not up for a v*te. The rights of a vast majority don't trump the rights of the one. Not ever, under any circumstances. Bad guys will always be trying to violate you- right now the worst of them just happen to call themselves "government", but they are no more legitimate than any other rapist or mugger. To pretend otherwise just gives them power.
The problem is the "system" you support and legitimize, not the fine details of how it violates people or their property. Play stupid games; win stupid prizes.
Also, as I have pointed out in the past, when you make people see you as someone who treats them as an enemy, how can you be surprised when they join the other side? You are cutting your own throat, and whining about the guy who made the razor you stole from someone else.
I am not a fan of the Constitution, for reasons which I feel should be quite obvious. But, many of those who advocate gun rights, while also advocating violating other rights, claim to be. So the weight of this inconsistency is on them. Which makes this next section stick out badly:
"And then can you then justify why NRA -- mandated by its bylaws 'To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States [and] To promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense' -- remains deliberately indifferent to the gravest threat to the right to keep and bear arms facing us?"
Because immigration control is in violation of the Constitution. You can't "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" while supporting something which is unconstitutional. It's bad when presidents do it, and it's bad when the NRA does it. If you are OK with violating it for one reason, why object to violating it for reasons other people have? If "immigration control", in violation of the Constitution, is OK, why is "gun control", also in violation of the Constitution, not OK? The NRA has its problems- I am a very disgruntled Life Member from way back when- but if it were to support violating the Constitution by doing as you ask, why shouldn't others get away with supporting violating the Constitution just as much in other ways- ways that you happen to disagree with?
"Have you incorporated this into your grassroots programs? Why not?"
No. Because of what was pointed out above. Either they can stay on mission, or they can abandon all semblance of consistency to appease those who want government to ignore constitutionality for their own agenda.
Politics makes people stupid.
I understand how critically important gun rights are. Really. But you can't protect some rights by violating others, nor by supporting any government programs- even government programs that are currently out of favor.