Graybeard Outdoors banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

1,685 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The NRA Fights Back II - Who's The Aggressor Here?

by John Longenecker

Several articles and editorials have appeared since the National Rifle Association announced its pull-out from placing its 2007 Convention in Columbus, Ohio. All of those editorials and articles against the pull-out entirely miss the point.

The NRA’s position is to respond in a businesslike or adult fashion to unprofessional or adolescent actions. Let’s summarize.

Columbus, Ohio was going to host the NRA's 2007 Convention. Some estimate the revenues in the neighborhood of $15 Million for that city. Some neighborhood.

But shortly after that announcement, the City Council introduced a ban on assault weapons. Forgetting for a moment that defining what an assault weapon is is difficult at best, the Council, like most politicians, forgets that no matter what law they write, it will never reach the criminal, because criminals do not obey laws. Most if not all crimes that make the news involve the subject’s already breaking several laws restricting his use of a gun or even having one. Why would another ban reach such a person?

The answer is that it doesn’t.

You can write another law and say you're fighting crime (and see little results) and you can believe that stiffening penalties for present crimes will help (and see no results), but neither will ever reach the criminal. Criminals don’t obey the law, and criminals don’t fear the police.

Bans do no good, and in the Columbus PR debacle, it reflects a most immature attitude in failing to make a city business connection between hosting a guest and insulting them and still expecting the insult to have no effect.

That’s teenage thinking, but there’s nothing new in that among liberals.

In short, who is the aggressor here?

The NRA is probably the oldest civil rights group in the country. Things may change in how groups are described, but the NRA’s mission remains the same: Liberty. When you get to know NRA members and their real mission, it seems clear that something has been kept from you.

Some of these Anti-NRA, anti-gun articles, anti-liberty articles describe someone like me as a gun-hugger. I do not hug a gun, I hug liberty. We are not gun nuts, we are liberty nuts, and it would seem that the people nuts about guns are actually the ones who keep trying to get rid of them without a clue as to the role they play then and now in our nation’s safety. Like the Columbus City Council, the real nuts bite the hand that feeds them without making the connection between their actions and the perfectly foreseeable results.

Unless it was no accident.

If I had to put it in one sentence, I’d say that anyone who is against guns is against liberty, and take it from there.

Not only has the NRA walked and handled the problem with dignity, but now it’s being pursued. The decision’s made, Columbus loses millions in revenues because of their teenage actions, and instead of trying to improve the issue, the gun-grabbers continue to stalk and harass through hit pieces and other venues.

Columbus might as well say "Get out and stay out!" And the editorials claim that the council was taking the high road in losing millions for the sake of a principle? Nice try, but it doesn’t fly. The Council might as well be teenagers.

I have a theory. The gun ban was no accidental collision of viewpoint and bad timing.

Why would a city council kiss off millions? What could be more important to them than local commerce revenues? What would be more important than the gain of $15 Million to the city?


With the NRA Convention would come an interesting message, a message of - of course - Liberty. Not guns so much, but more of Liberty.

With tens of thousands of patrons attending, the mission would have an interested audience to hear the message of freedom, the message of our U.S. History, interesting books and videos, and maybe some would even be enrolled to become members. That's what the City Council fears the most.

The Columbus ban is another tactic to silence an opposing view. It may be deemed illegal later, but for now, it’s served its purpose. The NRA walked, and look who's chasing them to the city limits. Such Hate.

.. but, hate for what? Guns? Or message that could enroll more into the view of Liberty?

Transparent and expensive to the city, it goes to show that the Left in America will spare no expense in squashing freedom by silencing others, including kissing off millions and calling it principle.

My suggestion is to learn for yourself. Find out what they don’t want you to know.

It's not about guns.


Premium Member
383 Posts
OH - The NRA Fights Back II - Who's The Agg


Thank you for the interesting post. I don't know who John Longenecker but I agree with his thinking.
1 - 2 of 2 Posts