Ramesh Ponnuru has written a fluff piece about NRA, but unfortunately, I see some glaring holes that illustrate he doesn’t really follow the gun issue closely.  While I agree with him that most of the other gun rights groups aren’t doing much, a great example of ignoring publicly available statements is his reference to the proposed rule from OSHA.  No where did he credit NSSF who had the first call to action out several days earlier than NRA.  He also conveniently leaves out the fact that OSHA received hundreds, if not thousands of comments – something that’s rarely seen.  Instead, he solely gives credit to NRA working with members of Congress.  I’m not saying that NRA doesn’t deserve recognition, but leaving out facts like that indicates biased or sloppy reporting.

Of course, I love how he calls the Romeny flip-flop “modest.”  (I don’t read it much, but when I have, National Review has become the Professional Mitt Cheerleading Team.)  Call me extremist if you want, but I don’t consider a sudden change from describing guns as “instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people” to a brand new life membership as “modest.”  Ponnuru’s attempt to whitewash that kind of extreme position change would appear to be nothing more than a free campaign ad.

Even his mention of the polar bear import ban has to be questioned.  While NRA did get involved, perhaps he ought to consider the impact of SCI mobilizing large donors who actually hunt polar bears to call members?  Or maybe he should mention that the largest caucus in Congress which focuses on hunting sent letters condemning the bill.  Call me insane, but with hundreds of members calling for defeat, that can hurt a bill’s chances.  Mix that with a bunch of rich guys who are politically involved picking up the phones, and it’s not exactly clear how much of an impact the few NRA members who care would go towards killing the bill.

While Ponnuru doesn’t directly give credit for Parker to NRA, he certainly leaves out those responsible for the case, and that’s a major sin in the gun world.

I’ve said before that NRA gets blamed more than it should and gets more credit than it deserves sometimes.  But Ponnuru’s fluff piece that whitewash’s favored candidate records and ignores the activities of others in the movement doesn’t make that better.  In fact, articles like that usually just further divide the movement because people who actually pay attention to the issue know the truth and wonder if writers like Ponnuru are simply ignoring facts or NRA is misrepresenting them.

No obviously related posts.