SRA: Socialist Rifle Association

[Lawdog]

There probably SHOULD NOT be room for everyone in the gun community – Guns Save Life

[Blackwater 53393]

That portion of their manifesto is some twisted excrement!!

 

There are plenty of nations that would welcome these cretins with open arms!  They should seek “asylum from their American oppressors” in their country of choice!!

[Subdeacon Joe]

Dangerous thinking, wanting to pick and choose who gets to exercise their constitutionally enumerated and protected civil rights. 

 

Other than the polarity of their rhetoric, I don't really see a difference from those of us whose contributions to the discussion consist of shouting "From my cold dead hands!" or "Shall not be infringed!" and comments that "they better come armed!"

 

Do I agree with their stated political views? No. 

Do I think we should have political tests for who gets to exercise their civil rights?  OH, HELL NO!

[Rip Snorter]

Just remember what Socialists are good at...I must have forgot.

[Subdeacon Joe]

20 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said:

Just remember what Socialists are good at...I must have forgot.

 

You mean limiting rights because of political views?

[Blackwater 53393]

14 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

You mean limiting rights because of political views?

NO! I mean removing rights from everyone! Under socialism as it’s practiced, you have no rights!! You’re only allowed to do what the government says you can do and often only after begging for permission!!

 

That’s what socialism does, in case anyone needs reminding!!

[Rip Snorter]

Failed or failing everywhere - when challenged, "They didn't do it right  We will!"  How quickly, "We" becomes "They!"

[Blackwater 53393]

15 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Other than the polarity of their rhetoric, I don't really see a difference from those of us whose contributions to the discussion consist of shouting "From my cold dead hands!" or "Shall not be infringed!" and comments that "they better come armed!"

While I agree that we must be careful about denying rights to people, we must also be careful to identify those among us who are threats to our way of life and to the safety of the public.

 

These people have openly stated their intention to harm others! They at least bear close attention and limited latitude in order to protect their publicly declared targets!!

 

These people have branded themselves subversive and advocated violence against others!  They have all but forfeited any credibility as a gun rights organization by their own choice!

[Subdeacon Joe]

 

 

2 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

While I agree that we must be careful about denying rights to people, we must also be careful to identify those among us who are threats to our way of life and to the safety of the public.

 

And that, folks, is how it starts. 

"It's for public safety!" 

 

"We'll just limit this right "for public safety."" 

"We have to silence that group "to protect our way of life.""

 

Sound familiar?

 

Like the old Lays Potato Chips commercial,  "Nobody can eat just one." 

Before you know it the bag is empty. 

 

As I said

15 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Dangerous thinking, wanting to pick and choose who gets to exercise their constitutionally enumerated and protected civil rights. 

 

Once started it's almost impossible to stop. 

All too soon you'll be looking into an empty bag wondering where it all went.

[Blackwater 53393]

2 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

 

 

And that, folks, is how it starts. 

"It's for public safety!" 

 

"We'll just limit this right "for public safety."" 

"We have to silence that group "to protect our way of life.""

 

Sound familiar?

 

Like the old Lays Potato Chips commercial,  "Nobody can eat just one." 

Before you know it the bag is empty. 

 

As I said

 

Once started it's almost impossible to stop. 

All too soon you'll be looking into an empty bag wondering where it all went.

No one has said ANYTHING about denying anyone their rights!! What’s being said is that this group IS NOT A LEGITIMATE GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION and shouldn’t be recognized as one!!

 

 

Jumping to the conclusion that this in any way restricts their rights is unproductive. It only clouds the picture and could deflect needed attention to the ACTUAL gun rights issue and attention from real, legitimate gun rights organizations and their efforts!!

 

Furthermore, it’s unfair and uncalled for to ascribe ideas and thoughts to someone who hasn’t indicated ANY such leanings!

 

 

Edited August 28 by Blackwater 53393

[Subdeacon Joe]

2 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

No one has said ANYTHING about denying anyone their rights!! What’s being said is that this group IS NOT A LEGITIMATE GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION and shouldn’t be recognized as one!!

 

So....

Deny them a voice because they are not of the correct politics.

 

What tests do we apply? How about loyalty oaths?

 

Who, precisely, determines the level of correct political thinking one must possess to have a voice?

 

From the opinion piece:

 

Their public statements, social media posts, and organizational literature frequently reveal a disturbing willingness to justify, romanticize, or even celebrate political violence against fellow citizens who dare to hold opposing views.

 

See my "cold death hands" comment above.  Also some of the violent rhetoric I've seen right here.

 

And

 

The SRA clearly isn’t operating in the spirit of the Second Amendment, which was designed to protect individual freedoms and serve as a final check against governmental tyranny.

 

The "spirit" of it. As determined by whom? Can you say "penumbra formed by eminations?"

 

Again, I don't agree with those people, I feel that they are dangerous. But to say that they don't have a seat at the table, that they have no right to support or exercise their constitutionally enumerated and protected RKBA is even more dangerous than what they are professing. 

[Blackwater 53393]

Put simply! They espouse only their followers should have guns and THAT IS NOT part of the “gun rights” organizations’ position! THEREFORE, (and this was the tenor of the article in the opening post) THEY SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS !!!

 

Other than acknowledging that they were a radical left socialist organization, no one said that their rights should be restricted!!

 

If they have a seat at the discussion table, it’s appropriate that they be seated on the “anti” side because they ARE ADVOCATING THAT ONLY THEY SHOULD HAVE  GUNS !!!

 

You’re projecting things that were not part of the statement into the discussion!!  They’re not 2A supporters!! They openly say so! The article simply points out that their position is detrimental to the cause of Second Amendment protection!!  It says NOTHING about them not having the right to say how they feel or what they represent!

 

 

Edited August 28 by Blackwater 53393

[El Chapo]

I guess I remember history differently.  Our founders were radical revolutionaries who shot the king's soldiers until there was liberty.  These people might be profoundly misguided, but radical politics aren't exactly new to the United States.

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Put simply! They espouse only their followers should have guns and THAT IS NOT part of the “gun rights” organizations’ position! THEREFORE, (and this was the tenor of the article in the opening post) THEY SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS !!!

 

Other than acknowledging that they were a radical left socialist organization, no one said that their rights should be restricted!!

 

If they have a seat at the discussion table, it’s appropriate that they be seated on the “anti” side because they ARE ADVOCATING THAT ONLY THEY SHOULD HAVE  GUNS !!!

 

You’re projecting things that were not part of the statement into the discussion!!  They’re not 2A supporters!! They openly say so! The article simply points out that their position is detrimental to the cause of Second Amendment protection!!  It says NOTHING about them not having the right to say how they feel or what they represent!

 

 

 

"Detrimental to the cause."

Так точно, товарищ! А поскольку их доктрина политически некорректна, им не должно быть места за столом, и права голоса они иметь не должны.  

Скажем ли мы сейчас Лаврентию Павловичу?

[Blackwater 53393]

A bit strident! 
данном случае присутствуют не только уклонение от темы, но и оскорбления. До сих пор никто не утверждал, что они должны быть каким-либо образом исключены из обсуждения или лишены права участия в нём.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28 by Blackwater 53393

[Subdeacon Joe]

Заявления о том, что им не место за столом переговоров, — это попытка заставить их замолчать.

 

Я называю вещи своими именами: эта статья и некоторые комментарии в её поддержку звучат для меня в точности как советская идеология.

[Blackwater 53393]

We can circle back around as often as you like.

 

Повторяю. Никто не утверждал, что они не должны участвовать в обсуждении. Было сказано, что они не представляют Вторую поправку и должны находиться на стороне противников оружия.

[Lawdog]

Let's stick to the King's English, please?

 

 

[Rip Snorter]

Google Translate (BTW, I heartily agree!)

I repeat: no one claimed that they shouldn't participate in the discussion. What was said was that they do not represent the Second Amendment and ought to be on the side of gun opponents.

[Subdeacon Joe]

9 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said:

Google Translate (BTW, I heartily agree!)

I repeat: no one claimed that they shouldn't participate in the discussion. What was said was that they do not represent the Second Amendment and ought to be on the side of gun opponents.

 

Unfortunately, that's what the linked article is advocating. Maybe not that bluntly, but that's what it boils down to. Also hints that the SRA people shouldn't be allowed the RKBA.

 

Once again I DON'T AGREE WITH THE SRA.   but I see the rhetoric against them as at least as equally dangerous as their position. Restrictions against them for "public safety " or because they might harm "the cause," and not "operating in the spirit" of the 2nd Amendment. Sounds to me exactly like the not-appeals to emotion that I hear from  the antis. 

 

We must, MUST, be very careful in just how we go about protecting our rights,  lest we become worse than what we oppose.  

 

And, quoting from the article: 

"Their public statements, social media posts, and organizational literature frequently reveal a disturbing willingness to justify, romanticize, or even celebrate political violence against fellow citizens who dare to hold opposing views."

 

I've read a lot of pro-Second Amendment stuff, even here, that that quoted bit fits like a coat of paint. All the "If they try to take my guns they better bring lots of ammo" or similar comments demonstrate a disturbing willingness to justify, romanticize, or even celebrate political violence 

against fellow citizens who dare to hold opposing views.

 

That slippery slope can be on both sides of a ridge.

[Blackwater 53393]

The linked article makes no reference whatsoever toward denying those who are members of or who support SRA any rights.  The article DOES say that they don’t represent real gun rights or the values of actual gun rights organizations. That view is corroborated by SRA’s own statements!!

 

The SRA’s statement number 4, which I won’t repeat here as a matter of decorum, calling for the disarmament of those who oppose them, plainly shows that they don’t belong in the the grouping of (I hate to use this word here) “mainstream” gun rights organizations. I don’t think ANYONE can successfully argue that they do.

 

When it’s all said and done, when all the hand wringing over “slippery slopes” has been faithfully completed, when all those who openly oppose what the SRA stands for and calls for are thoroughly vilified, and when this discussion circles back again and again, it won’t justify personal insults, regardless of what language they’re written in!!

 

 

Edited August 29 by Blackwater 53393

[Subdeacon Joe]

Maybe it's because I  have to deal with California politics and have learned to parse ever phrase, seek the words behind the words, that I'm so twitchy about the piece and the pitchfork shaking support of it. 

 

But phrases like "They don't DESERVE a place among responsible gun owners" are exactly like someone saying, "I support the Second Amendment,  BUT...." 

 

That little disclaimer "among responsible gun owners" has the same weight as the  "I support the Second Amendment...." before supporting some anti-gun drivel does. 

 

"Nobody is saying..." yeah,  and "Nobody wants to take away your guns." either. 

 

My interpretation of that article is that it's as, or more, dangerous to our Constitution as anything Everytown puts out. It uses the same rhetorical devices, as do the apologists supporting it.  It borders on Stalinist thinking, no different, other polarity, than the SRA.

 

The appeals "for public safety" are no different than when Everytown uses them. Saying that they aren't in the "spirit" of the Second Amendment is just like the penumbra and eminations the "living breathing document" people us to argue that the Constitution must change to conform the current popular opinion.

 

As Justice Scalia said,  "The Constitution says what it says,  and doesn't say what it doesn't say."  It says nothing about the "spirit" if it, and the only mention of public safety is in the clause that says habeas corpus may not be suspended except in cases if invasion or rebellion require ut for public safety.  

 

 

[Blackwater 53393]

Leaving out the profanity that precedes this part of their own statement, not because that profanity changes the tenor of the statement, but because it might offend some and it might unduly influence others’ opinions, I quote SRA in their own written words:

“we are not in favor of "guns for everyone", we are in favor of arming those groups who stand most to gain from the end of capitalism, and disarming those who stand in our way”

 

Can anyone honestly justify calling them a GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION , even in the loosest description??

 

That quote is little different than the screed found in the “manifestos” written by some of the recent serial killers.  Saying that they bear watching is not excluding them from the conversation.
 

The “cold dead hands” statement and others like it from actual members of the pro Second Amendment community are acknowledgements of a willingness to defend one’s self and their rights! Those are not threats of offense, nor are they calling for any attack against anyone. They don’t call for disarming anyone. They merely say, however vehemently, “LEAVE ME ALONE!!!”

 

That is the same thing that the colonists in our national past were saying to King George. We didn’t start the hostilities, but we prepared for them and when our forefathers were marched upon and attacked, they DEFENDED themselves!!

 

What SRA IS  saying is that they and those who support them should be the only ones who are allowed to be armed!! They’re saying that those who don’t agree with them should be DISARMED!!  None of that fits the description of a genuine gun rights organization.

 

The article says that “this doesn’t mean every group automatically earns a seat at the table WITHIN THE BROADER FIREARMS CULTURE.”   

 

It’s saying that SRA belongs on the same side of the table as Bloomberg and that crowd who have made it clear that their position is “Guns are fine when they’re protecting us, but they are not for the average citizen!”

 

SRA is another “All for me! None for thee!” group!  Isn’t that a fine example of “Stalinist ideology”?

 

 

 

Edited August 29 by Blackwater 53393