Americans Clamour to be on NRA Blacklist

[HFishbine]

You've probably read by now about the NRA's blacklist (article below from a favorite Australian newspaper, but it's been in the US papers too). Of course all the folks who think the NRA is madness incarnate but who aren't on the list, were furious for being omitted. So James and Sarah Brady set up a website so the rest of us could sign up to be on their blacklist too.

You can go to http://www.nrablacklist.com/ to sign up.

The Bakers had planned to get 10,000 signatures to deliver to Congress, but 10,000 had signed up within three days. The website says they're going for 25,000 signatures now.

URL: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/30/1067233322824.html

[_NorCal_D_]

1. I joined

this morning!
B-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. oh goodie

when people beg to go on a black list, it looses its allure.

Now the story is making the rounds internationally.

That is good... shows we are now engaging in acts
of civil resistance.

By the way, are you on the list? I am... and I urge all DUers
to sign the petition.

Oh and yes I do believe in the second ammendment but I refuse
to be terrorized by the government or the agents of that
government

[DonP]

3. Welcome to the Brady Center fund solicitation mailing list

You can expect a regular series of solicitation e-mails from the VPC and the Brady Group. The Million Mom March went bankrupt two years ago and Brady took in the name as a fund raising tool.

[random]

7. And the problem with that is?

Couldn't be worse than the NRA mailing list. I gave up my membership years ago, and I can't get obnoxious enough to get them to stop calling me and sending me crap.

[XanaDUer]

9. So?

n/t.

[leanings]

4. I think this is about the eighth thread on this topic

But I'll post again anyway. Jim and Sarah Brady? I thought this was sponsored by "StoptheNRA.com"?

Here's what I posted in the other threads:

Unfortunately the website is pretty typical of the Brady Campaign/MMM. The two "outrages" listed are both, at the mininum, very misleading statements. I don't really see the big deal about a "blacklist", either; does anybody here support corporations or individuals that give support to causes you're against? I try not to.

The website is also a pretty typical attempt by MMM and the BC to make it appear as tho some new grassroots pro-control group has come to be. The website is "Sponsored by StoptheNRA.com", which in fact is nothing more than a BC/MMM shill.

People talk about the NRA being funded by the gun companies, but it seems to me that there are 3.6 million members who pay $35 a year to belong. In addition, there are far more grass roots pro-gun orgs than pro-control. If gun control is a winning, popular cause, why does the NRA have such broad based financial support while the pro-control folks have to depend mainly on grants from foundations and are unable to sustain organizations other than VPC and BC/MMM?

[Blayde Starrfyre]

6. This is why

"If gun control is a winning, popular cause, why does the NRA have such broad based financial support while the pro-control folks have to depend mainly on grants from foundations and are unable to sustain organizations other than VPC and BC/MMM?"

I suspect it is because the NRA draws money from a pool of people who don't really think about forking over money to a conservative organization. You would think it inconceivable that the lower-income conservatives would be so eager to fork money hand over fist into the palms of snake-oil salesmen like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, yet they do. I suspect it is the same with the NRA.

It seems to me there is a pattern where you can convince the Right to more easily give up something up if you can scare them. They are happy to hand over their Constitutional rights just because Bush threatens terrorists are hiding under every Bush. The same was true during the McCarthy era. Falwell just has to say "They're taking God out of our society! Send check or money order to . . ." and Falwell is laughing all the way to the bank. The NRA says "They're trying to keep you from owning a fully automatic rifle with a silencer and a scope! George Washington would want to you have one in every room in the house! Whip out that credit card!" Liberals are more skeptical. They are used to distrusting the status quo, even if it's in their own camp. Sorry, no way I'm sending money to the Democrats if they're going to run people like Maria Cantwell. Conservatives don't (can't?) do this. It's to the party's benefit, though detrimental to American democracy.

[leanings]

8. hmm...

Liberals don't seem to have any problem joining the ACLU, NORML or the NAACP. I just don't think enough people give a damn about gun control to get involved financially.

I would also dispute the stereotype of every NRA member, or even most, as lowbrow, low-income and corrupted by fear. While those people certainly do exist, folks who simply support the RKBA because they've grown up with guns and are upset at the prospect of British-style controls, they aren't alone. There are many NRA members, myself included, who belong because of their passionate and reasoned opinions on gun ownership and because they recognize that the NRA performs many functions other than advocating gun rights.

The NRA, by the way, doesn't advocate the deregulation of full-auto weapons or silencers, at least not that I'm aware of. That's pro-control propaganda, attempting to instill fear and mobilize their supporters. The NRA is certainly guilty of the same thing, but it's not the only one.

Oh, and welcome to DU!

[alcuno]

5. Thanks.

I like it.