“Political observers expect the Washington Post and the New York Times to carry water for Joe Biden’s Department of Justice gun control agenda. It’s surprising when the conservative National Review seemingly bends over backward to defend the weaponized agency in a poorly researched and written piece,” the National Rifle Association stated in a Wednesday release. “On August 9, National Review published an item with the confident title ‘Yes, the ATF Can Legally Regulate Ghost Guns.’ The ill-informed piece was written by a summer intern. If it was an unpaid internship, the publication got every penny’s worth.”
While correct in its analysis of why the National Review is wrong, what’s really surprising is that the NRA is surprised at all. The publication has been a haven for collaborationist right “Vichycons” since its inception and has never shied away from advocating for more compromises on the right to keep and bear arms than even Wayne LaPierre. And by its veterans, not just by its interns, who arguably do what they’re told.
Without ever setting out to do it, I have over the years compiled many examples of NRO (National Review Online) outrages that in no particular order include:
Advocating for Robert Bork on the Supreme Court, the jurist who said:
“The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.”
Bragging about praise from Charles Krauthammer, the “moderate liberal/independent conservative” who wrote:
“The Brady Bill’s only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
And:
“Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move. … Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
Savaging a Second Amendment lawsuit many of us “non-compromisers” found promising and were working to promote and then reneging on their commitment to allow for a rebuttal by an attorney with Supreme Court experience.
Advocating for importing more immigrants, just like the anti-gun “pathway to citizenship” Democrats are counting on.
Giving a home for years to insufferably “moderate” David French, and promoting his insanely self-contradicting contention that “Gun-violence restraining orders (GVROs) make us all safer while empowering the individual and protecting liberty.”
“Conservatives must finally recognize something that’s very depressing and very important: the conservative intellectual movement in America didn’t just fail. It aided and abetted the Left for money. The Left bought off the Right’s leading conservative intellectuals. And its think tanks. And its “flagship” magazines. This is not hyperbole or conjecture. I’ve got the receipts. Until conservatives understand the depth and breadth of that betrayal, they won’t have any chance of rebuilding that movement out of the ashes any time soon.”
Defending state restrictions on bearing arms as a “federalism” issue and dishonestly (and snarkily) arguing that restrictions on abuses of a right are equivalent to restricting the right itself.
Declaring, “Liz Cheney undertook a stunning act of political courage [when] She voted to impeach President Trump…”
Falling for “Baby Steps toward a Workable Middle Ground on Guns”:
“[W]e gun-rights advocates should take this opportunity to meet the other side more than halfway, as they have moved more than halfway in our direction.”
All this should surprise no one who has been paying attention for a while, because the founder of National Review, William F. Buckley, was also an idiot on the right to keep and bear arms who wrote:
“Pass Brady Bill More As Symbol Than Deterrent To Crime … It is hard to know how an imposition of that nature seriously deprives us of the right guaranteed under the Second Amendment.”
What’s harder to know is why any gun owner who believes in rights as articulated by the Founders would give defeatist and wrong-headed frauds the time of day, let alone be influenced by their equivocations. The battle for the soul of the Republic is existential, and freedom will never be won by listening to tepid apologists for infringements such as these.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
I’ve read the part of the first paragraph in this article here before.
I miss Charles Krauthammer. The man was very smart and usually when he spoke, people listened. The world is not the same without him and Rush Limbaugh, God rest their souls.
Dayum! I recall being saddened at Krauthammer’s passing. I thought he was conservative based on watching a very few of his editorials. Now I don’t feel so sad. As I make my rounds taking care of personal errands most days, I listen to a lot of “conservative” talk radio on AM. Yeah, the static and fading triggers pleasant nostalgia from decades ago. Most of what I hear is whining about “those damn Democrats” and how mean they are to our good “Republicans”. It is absolute Brainwashing 101! Do the Democrats suck? As a general rule, HELL YEAH THEY DO! Unfortunately,… Read more »
Krauthammer’s analysis of the brady bill and AWB seem spot on. All depends on whether he’s trying to spin loss of rights as a good thing. Both were symbolic moves intended to desensitize Americans to loss of our liberties. Far as I can tell they both worked fairly well, though nowhere near as effective as “gun violence.”
How do we decouple guns and violence in the majorities minds at this point? Long as government, schools, and media keep pushing the phrase I see no easy victory.
“what’s really surprising is that the NRA is surprised at all”
That’s just what I posted when the NRA’s original post appeared. Almost word for word!
And no, I’m no sock puppet. I guess I just think a lot like Mr. Codrea does… 🙂
“Defending state restrictions on bearing arms as a “federalism” issue and dishonestly (and snarkily) arguing that restrictions on abuses of a right are equivalent to restricting the right itself.” People don’t just forget what actually happened at Lexington and Concord in the predawn chill of one April morning. They were actually never taught that some 3000 formerly loyal British subjects ran, some of them for miles, so as not to miss their chance to fire upon their own troops. Paul Revere didn’t yell “The Britsh are comming.” To do so would have been foolish in the extreme as both Revere… Read more »
There’s no “middle ground” with fundamental rights. It’s all or nothing.
As a Bircher, I’ve been well aware of the NR’s pseudo-conservativism for years. Anything to do with Bill Buckley is guaranteed to be approved by the administrative state.
Take anything from the National Review with a grain of neocon salt.
Has anyone tried editing a post lately and get this red error message pop up…you are writing to fast, slow down, when you click on the save toggle? Then it refuses to accept the edit!
Sounds to me like Krauthammer may have been saying that the laws would have no effect on crime but that the purpose of themwas to “lube us up” for confiscation.
Once again, Codrea has to go off target to get in a little pro-Trump rhetoric. The focus of the article is on how the National Review’s record on pro-2A issues is weak, that it often has advocated restrictions antithetical to the 2A. Cool, totally concur. The only way Trump should be brought into this convo is to highlight NR opinion piece’s like Dan McLaughlin’s argument in favor of what he termed high-ground compromise in relation to Trump’s unconstitutional bumpstock ban. Trump is an authoritarian; you cannot be pro-2A and pro-Trump at the same time, because doing the latter means compromise… Read more »