Blacklist a badge of honor

By Nicole Brodeur, Seattle Times.


"Fannie Flagg? Dr. Joyce Brothers? Sandy Duncan? - This can't be a National Rifle Association blacklist. It sounds like an old guest roster from "Match Game '75."

For something designed to be discriminatory, the NRA's 19-page e-raspberry is hardly discriminating.

Instead of putting the fear of God — or Moses, as portrayed by Charlton Heston — into people, the list is putting them into hysterics and has made the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action a momentary laughingstock.

Not only does the list lack firepower, but it also has started a new trend of Wanting On. Thousands of people have written to the pro-gun lobby, begging to be blacklisted. "

More...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nicolebrodeur/2001782174_brodeur04m.html

I believe the gun-owners including the majority who are not NRA members are odds on favorites to win the battle by defending their inalienable right to defend self and property and to exercise that right by keeping and bearing firearms.

RKBA is a basic civil right and just as important as any other civil right.

AND DAMM PROUD OF IT!

or the article it contains.

If you really have a great deal to say on this, there's a forum in Justice and Public Safety just waiting for you.

understand what the blacklist is for. I suggest you read the article you cited more carefully.

If you want to argue the merits of the politics, there are many fora here in which you can do that.

The article is about how the blacklist has failed as a tool, become a laughingstock and people actually want to get on it.

Here's the bottom line: The article is about the irony, the failures and the inherent humour in the list. The article is not about the merits of NRA, gun control, theories of self-defense, sedition and government.

In simpler words, the article is about the list. Your statements are about the politics of the issue. These are widely differing subjects.

in the list", then what evidence is there that the list is a failure?

Irony might be more appropriately asserted by using the list "Support for Banning Handguns" from Handgun Free America and then citing the recent survey "Winning the Gun Vote".

Using your logic, that's real irony since the list of gun-grabbers support a gun-ban that is obviously losing the support of Democratic leaders.

it's not. Plain and simple.

I don't fall for strawman arguments, and I'm not interested in debating this issue with you. Whatever your presumption, I haven't suggested my sympathies belong with either side in the issue.

Again, because it is the most important point and the one you don't seem to grasp; there is a forum for the discussion you seem to want in this matter. I suggest you try to find your debate there.

You say you are making an important point that a list published by a pro-gun group is humerous but refuse to accept another and older list published by a gun-grabber group as also humerous.

The only humor is your failure to acknowledge that gun-grabbers have harmed the Democratic party.

If gun-grabbers did not exist, Karl Rove would have to create and finance them to keep Repugs and AWOL in office.

This is the Lounge, it is not the appropriate forum for important points. The Humour, I state again, is in the fact that rather than creating a deterrent they've created a list that people are begging to be put on.

Please quit hijacking this thread. There are fora aplenty for you to engage in serious discussion of your pet issues.

I have no interest in your opinions on this matter and I will not debate them with you. You have no idea what my opinions are in this matter, and I will not share them with you.

The article is a humourous piece which simply points out that the list is so filled with no-names and has-beens as to now actually appeal to the young and silly.

P.S. "Damm" proud of it???

But since I've never owned a gun in my life, I suppose it's OK that I didn't know that particular abbreviation.

I wonder if the other groups who put out lists of people and companies that oppose their position (like the MMM, animal rights groups, et cetera) are also a laughingstock? Or is it just the NRA?

Do they keep such a wide list? Does it judge people on their political beliefs? I think the NRA list is funny because it casts such a wide net. A list of Politicians or TV News talking heads who oppose the NRA is one thing, but every 70s sitcom star who may have supported gun control at some point? What possible effect could they have on the issue?

From my perspective, it's to let people know where these people stand on an issue, so that they can support or not support them as they choose.

Hell, the NRA isn't even calling for a boycott on them, they're just telling people what their stance is or has been.

of the list that creates the laughingstock it's the lackluster roster of names upon it. Did you read the article..?

I suspect if the PETA had filled a blacklist with the names of sitcom stars who hadn't been heard of since the '70's we'd be giggling at them as well.

It IS a badge of honor--thank you all very much!

Sandy Duncan, aren't you...? ;-)

All C-list celebrities want to get their names in the papers - maybe they should sell space on the list.

that many NRA members aren't even aware of the blacklist. So...what's that accomplishing, really, other than the publicity your mention?