Now, I believe that the NRA is a dangerous and dishonest organization,
In a recent article, I called the CIA a "serial killer in the basement of government". There is no moral difference between this statement and the NRA's "jackbooted thugs". The only argument that I can think of, that I am not knowingly addressing an audience of gun owners and the NRA is, won't wash. The minute we start trying to differentiate identical speech based on the audience it is addressed to, we are in a world of double standards. I believe in the elimination of double standards, not their promotion.
This attitude on the part of others is clearly demonstrated with this single incident. George Bush, who likely only joined the NRA to get its endorsement in the 1988 election, resigned over the NRA's "jack-booted thugs" statement, and it was big news all over the country. However, when the late NRA president Tom Washington made a very reasoned and factual reply, it was ignored, and the organization had to spend a fortune publishing it in ads in leading newspapers. The media were not honest enough to present both sides of the issue.
Unfortunately for the people of this country, this method of journalism and news reporting is not the exception, but the norm. In another piece, I already mentioned how the Larry King Live show preferred to have someone on favor of gun control on the show, with no one to present another side of the issue. There are many more examples. These are the kinds of things appearing in the media and in politics this Spring, only a year after these same people were excoriating the NRA for its own rhetoric:
Mr. Wallace, you seem to have honesty and ethics, but the people with whom you agree on the issue of gun control seem to have neither.
No-one bashed me for my "serial killer" remark, and those criticizing NRA conveniently forget that BATF, the target of the "thugs" remark, was badly out of control in both the Branch Davidian and Weaver incidents.
Lumplugh was just wearing pajama bottoms, and his wife was was not dressed, either; they were not allowed to dress all day. Although Lumplugh fully cooperated with them, the agents, from the BATF and IRS, proceeded to trash the house. Furniture was smashed or overturned and their papers were scattered. The agents seized marriage and birth certificates, school records, insurance information, vehicle registrations and titles, financial and business records, mailing lists, the names of contacts with newspapers, friends and family. They also took firearms and ammunition, nothing illegal, because Lumplugh owned nothing illegal.
Harry Lumplugh had cancer, and was under medication from his doctor. The agents dumped out all of his prescription medicines and scattered them on the floor. Afterward, two of his cats got into the medicine and died horrible deaths.
At lunch time, the agents knocked off their "work" and brought in pizza, which they ate in front of the Lumplughs, and after their pizza party was over, they discarded the remains, half-eaten pizza, boxes and partially empty soda pop cans, all over the Lumplugh's floor. In mid-afternoon, the agents concluded their destruction and left. On the way off the property, agent Donna Slusser stomped to death the Lumplugh's Manx kitten and kicked the body under a tree.
Their attorney told them that the warrant under which the agents stormed the Lumplugh's house did not name a single specific item for which they were searching. Neither did it reference any crime by any person. So why were they there? Harry Lumplugh was in the business of promoting gun collecting shows in the northeastern US. It's common knowledge that the BATF sends agents to those shows, but I guess there are very small gains for the agency in that activity, because the gun shows are overwhelmingly honest and legal. If they want to interfere with such shows, they seem to have decided that the only way they can succeed is by intimidating the promoters.
Since the raid, the Lumplughs have been receiving threatening telephone calls in the middle of the night, informing them that they would be dead if they don't "button their lip." Also, local journalists and television hosts have been threatened, to intimidate them from openly covering the Lumplugh's ordeal. The warrant remained sealed so that it could not be further investigated.
When Lawmaster, who had lived in Tulsa his whole life and had had no brushes with the law more serious than traffic tickets, got into the house, he found that the agents had scattered his papers all over the place, spilled boxes of ammunition onto the floor, broke into a small box which had contained a small coin collection and stood on a table to look through the tiles on the ceiling, breaking the table while doing it.
His house was left open and, but for the active concern of his neighbors, some of whom were grilled by the agents, anyone could have come into his home and taken what they pleased. Worse, neighborhood children could have come in and injured themselves or others with the unsecured firearms that the agents left behind them. That danger was made worse because Lawmaster discovered that gun magazines that he always kept empty had been loaded with ammunition, making it easier for guns to be fired.
Lawmaster called the local BATF agent and asked "Are you going to arrest me?" The agent said "No." Lawmaster asked "Who is going to repair and clean up my house?" The agent said "If you want to talk to me, come down to my office." Lawmaster told the BATF agent that he couldn't come down then, because he had no way of locking his house. The agent said "If you want your door to lock and your gun safe to lock, you're gonna' have to pay for it yourself." Lawmaster said that later he would come down, with his attorney. The agent said "Well, you bring your attorney, and we won't talk to you."
Lawmaster was never charged, and the warrant was sealed, so that it could not be investigated.
The Grants agreed to stop using those cartons, and dropped plans to extend adding that information to other beers in their line. Since the rule seemed silly to them, they issued a press release about the order from the BATF to some trade journals. The story got some national attention, which was sympathetic to them.
After that, agent Dunbar started coming back again and again, looking at their records and grilling employees, and doing so in a confrontational and intimidating manner. The Grants estimate that in the following year, they had to spend about 20% of their time dealing with one regulatory problem after another. Among the "problems" was that they had to get the label for Grants Celtic Ale reapproved because they had changed the color, and that the BATF had decided that Grant's Spiced Ale, in production for eight years, had a "frivolous" name that required a generic description: "A Fermented Ale with Added Spices and Honey", in letters as big as the name. (So far, the BATF has not instigated any similar proceedings against the makers of Blackened Voodoo, Labatt's Blue or Pete's Wicked Ale, to name a few.)
Also, and this was the worst, the BATF magically transformed Grant's Cider, in production for nine years, into a wine, and charged them large amounts of back excise taxes, occupational taxes for wineries, penalties and interest. The cost looked to be well into six figures, not counting $100,000 in legal fees, plus lost sales.
I don't understand this business of being "fearful that a far right wing agenda was being advanced." As I have stated before, since when is defending the Bill of Rights a matter of where one stands on the political spectrum? Further, I think that if something is wrong, it is wrong, whether or not it might help someone with whom one politically disagrees. Do you feel that the ACLU should not have defended the rights of the Nazis to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois? That was certainly advancing a far-right agenda. Then why did the ACLU do it? Because it was the correct thing to do, of course, and the only way to prevent the setting of certain precedents that would have had the effect of weakening the First Amendment. Why do the rules change, all of a sudden, when the Second Amendment is involved, not the First?
If you want to criticize NRA rhetoric, target the words that really go over the line of fair political discourse, such as the board member statement envisioning the murder of Mrs. Brady of Handgun Control. But don't penalize the NRA for the same strongly opinionated rhetoric you would endorse in support of your own political agenda.