Correlation or Causation? The NRA and Armed Rebellion
By I’ve been largely out of touch the past couple of weeks (some would say it’s been considerably longer) so apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere.
When the incoming President of the NRA (by my understanding, a largely ceremonial position; we’ll still have Wayne LaPierre around to frighten into submission) inspires his already over-inspired audience with rhetoric such as this:
“This is not a battle about gun rights,” Porter said, calling it “a culture war.”
“(You) here in this room are the fighters for freedom. We are the protectors”
is it really “staggering” that 29% of Americans believe that “in the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties”?
As Erik suggested a few days ago, by all accounts, the tenure of James Porter is going to reliably bring the crazy. While most of the discussion about Porter highlight his batshit side (e.g. his lamenting the war of Northern Aggression, being a birther, etc.), this is more telling, and confirmatory about our assessment of the NRA:
“Porter, 64, whose father was NRA president from 1959-1961, is part of the small, Birmingham, Ala., law firm of Porter, Porter & Hassinger. The firm’s website notes its expertise in defending gun manufacturers in lawsuits.”
It’s not about rights. It’s about money.
