The NRA/GOP 'runs' pro-2A posters here like ANSWER 'ran' opposition to the Iraq war.

[friendly_iconoclast]

The Republicans got a lot of mileage by claiming all opposition to, and protests of, the Iraq war
came either from active ANSWER members or their dupes.

I (amongst others) have been accused of being NRA/GOP/right-wing employees or shills for supporting Americans' Second
Amendment rights.

This is like claiming that someone who is actively anti-smoking 'must' be a neo-Nazi....

[paulsby]

1. i agree with your general point, but...

on the issue of smoking.

i am vehemently anti-smoking. i hate cigarette smoke with every fiber of my soul...

however...

statist assmunches who tell private businesses that they must be smoke free are not quite nazis, but they are statist assmunches.

it should be a choice. if a business wants to be smoke free, or NOT, that should be THEIR choice.

i can see exceptions for grocery stores, etc. which are places of necessity so to speak.

but when it comes to bars, restaurants, etc. it should be a choice.

just because i don't like something doesn't mean i cede power to the govt. to ban it.

[Euromutt]

3. I think the comparison holds

The Nazis were highly anti-smoking, and ran the first publicly funded anti-smoking campaign in history. The earliest scientific research linking smoking to lung cancer was carried out by Nazis (which is why the American scientific establishment was slow to accept it after the war). It's not that anti-smokers are nazis (note lower case n), it's that the Nazis (by and large) were anti-smokers.

The point friendly iconoclast is trying to make, I think, is that you can't dismiss concerns about smoking just because the Nazis happened to share that opinion (and I say that as a smoker myself); and, similarly, you can't dismiss DU'ers pro-RKBA opinions because they happen to be shared by the NRA and a large segment of the GOP.

[paulsby]

5. i totally agree

let me make that clear.

i get that all the time when i make an argument pro rkba that "that's a right3wing talking point"

which isn't a rebuttal.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Thank you. That was the point I was trying to make.

I would also point out that the Nazis were also big on conservation and pollution control (thanks largely to Hermann Goering), and also *wayy* outdid the WPA/CCC, etc. on what we now call "rebuilding the infrastructure"
prior to WWII. Right alongside their insane and criminal racial theories, of course.

For that matter, the Deutschebahn (DB, the German railway system) were planning a high-speed intercity
rail system using dedicated tracks. Sort of an early Shinkansen or TGV. I'd venture to say the Japanese and French cribbed the idea from the Third Reich

I guess a useful rejoinder to the Brady/VPC types would be to ask them if they
were against smoking, or if they travel on limited-access highways, or supported pollution control laws
and high-speed rail projects.

Then point out the above, and remind them that good ideas are not necessarily the monopoly of the good, the just, or people you'd want to have dinner with.

[Hoopla Phil]

2. There seems to be a trend to call pro 2A people "coward" here in the gungeon lately too.

I would think the Mods would enforce the rules about that one:eyes:

[spin]

8. "Sticks and stones may break my bones...

but I laugh at insults in a serious debate.

When the anti-gun poster has to rely on saying that gun owners are compensating for a small penis or is a coward, it shows that his/her argument lacks depth.

Remember, you can always post on a pro-gun site where everyone agrees with you and your pro-gun opinion will be highly respected.

When you decide advocate RKBA on a site that is basically liberal and progressive, you have made a decision to test your beliefs against the best voices of the anti-gun faction of our "big tent" Democratic Party. That's the fun. You do learn a lot about both the strengths and the weaknesses of the pro-gun debate.

Like a boxer stepping into the ring, you know you might have to take a few good shots. But if you start to win the fight, you have to expect a few low blows or head butts. This is the other boxer's home town and most of the crowd is routing for him.

I've found the moderators to be very fair as long as you throw clean punches and show good sportsmanship. If the other guy gets too far out of line, they do step in.

[rl6214]

9. That's just one

VERY VOCAL poster, if you know what I mean.

[safeinOhio]

4. I am firmly behind the Second

I am just as firmly behind the First, Fourth and Fifth. I just don't see the same commitment to the other 3. Therefore I give my money to organization that support the other civil liberties and not the NRA.

[Caliman73]

7. I support your right to donate to any group you wish to support

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that proponents of gun control are very quick to attack liberal defenders of the 2nd amendment with being shills for the gun industry, or with being NRA plants, or other calls of being right wing that are 1. Against forum rules, and 2. Not true.

Most liberals are firmly behind the 1st, 4th, and 5th, amendment. I am not sure how or why you don't see commitment to these, but you see support for the 2nd? On this forum I see people arguing for the 1st, 4th, and 5th all the time. The only amendment that seems to get constantly vilified is the 2nd. Perhaps I am not understanding what you wrote, can you clarify?

For me, the NRA is irrelevant. I am not a member and I do not contribute. I choose to write my own letters and call my representatives to support the 2nd. I have contributed to other organizations representing various other rights in the past.