The National Rifle Association last week called a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling, in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union and against Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “a significant victory” and “a big loss for Big Brother.” The lawsuit challenged the National Security Agency’s position that collection of telephone “metadata” was authorized by the so-called “Patriot Act.”
“Your NRA had participated in the case by filing friend of the court briefs at different stages of the proceedings,” the Institute for Legislative Action report advised. “We have also supported legislation to curtail the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of American citizens.”
Why?
Aren’t we told NRA is a “single issue” organization, focused solely on promotion and protection of the Second Amendment? Isn’t that the rationale given for the Association’s deliberate indifference to “amnesty” and its “pathway to citizenship” being grave threats to continued legislative and judicial protections for the right to keep and bear arms? Their silence is despite all credible polls showing such voters will overwhelmingly support anti-gun Democrats. And in spite of that, NRA endorsed “immigration reform” proponent and Michael Bloomberg ally, Grover Norquist for its board of directors, and urged its membership to support “cheap labor” Republican sellouts like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham.
The thing is, NRA is absolutely correct to concern itself with state surveillance, and this isn’t the first time their partnering with ACLU to advance common causes (like their shared opposition to “campaign finance reform”) has been appropriate. That’s because such advocacy is entirely consistent with the “purposes and objectives” of NRA’s bylaws, which are not optional for them to follow, and which require directors and paid staff to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States [and] promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense.”
It’s also consistent with past statements made by an NRA advertising campaign declaring “all freedoms are connected,” and with the speech Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre delivered to the Conservative Political Action Conference. In it, he broached such diverse “connected” concerns as threats from Russia and the Islamic State, the economy and the debt, the loss of privacy, freedom of speech and religion, hackers and identity thieves, tracking license plates, online health histories, economic fraud, untrustworthy media, a “weaponized IRS” and “politicians … pushing nanny state social schemes.”
What LaPierre didn’t — and won’t – unequivocally talk about is one “key issue” Hillary Clinton falsely (surprise!) says distinguishes her from all Republican competitors, her pledge “to secure legal status, and citizenship, for millions of undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Hispanic.”
Why does anyone suppose Clinton, who is “energiz[ing] gun control supporters” and whocompares gun rights advocacy to terrorism, is so sure this is a constituency she can count on? Why is Homeland Security “working overtime to add ‘new Americans‘?” And why are all gun rights“terror” groups – with the notable exception of Gun Owners of America — not only silent, but actively enabling politicians who offer weasel-worded euphemisms like “immigration reform” that will ultimately bring us to the same place? Aside from money and access considerations, and not wanting to alienate those who can provide them…?
Part of it is probably because experience gives them good reason to believe a “single issue” chorus of “loyalists” will drown out lone voices warning against the destructive consequences of such avoidance, and that suits Hillary just fine. Still, it’s ironic that the more “mainstream” groups try to distance themselves from “I will not comply” activists, the more it looks like they’re setting things up to where the “system” options they offer will be irrelevant, and the only choices left will be to surrender and obey intolerable acts, or to defy and resist them.
by David Codrea
http://www.examiner.com/article/nra-support-of-aclu-lawsuit-contradicts-single-issue-apologists
