28 June, 2010

The NRA's position on the DISCLOSE act

Rachel Parsons of the NRA spoke with Dana Loesch of The Dana Show today. The topic was the NRA stepping aside selling out to the Democrats for an exemption.  In stating the NRA's position, Rachel Parsons stated,  "we had to put the Second Amendment over the First Amendment."  When Dana Loesch pushed the issue, asking  Ms. Parsons if some amendments have greater value than others?  Her reply, "I would certainly never say that one freedom in this country is more important than the other." 

It seems Ms. Parsons can't decide what exactly the NRA's position is.  By their actions, they are against free speech.  By the statement of their media representative, they appear to be waffling. 

The audio is here and the interview begins at about 17:00 in. 


Sevesteen said...

If the NRA is going to move into areas other than gun rights, where should they draw the line? Whose political philosophy should they follow--conservative or libertarian?

Top of the Chain said...

By seeking this exemption and protecting their First Amendment rights, they've entered this arena.

Sevesteen said...

Fighting DISCLOSE as it applies to the NRA is simple self-defense. You are saying that they don't have the right of self-defense if they aren't also willing to fight for the rights of The Brady Campaign or PETA.

TotC said...

Yes, the first amendment should be applied equally across everyone, regardless of the message. We as gun owners gained back the fundamental right to self defense without interference by the state. It was discrimination plain and simple. Now, the NRA is taking their exemption at the cost to other gun rights organizations and others who should have an equal seat at the table.