Gun-control groups fear top activist was NRA spy

[Flash]

You might be surprised to find I'm not even a member of the NRA at this time. I am member of GOA and multiple other conservation organizations though.

By membership in the GOA, I would assume that you support many of the NRA's goals and not those of the anti-gun groups targeted. Hence, probable sympathy for the NRA and its 'presumed' tactic.

Also, keep in mind that nothing is "proven" according to the above article. The woman is linked to multiple groups in the article and also works for a firm that is used by the NRA. Maybe they used her, and maybe not.

Then maybe the NRA ought to man up and say something, rather than clam up an say nothing. That in itself says something.

 

[feddoc]

And how many times have you spoken out when the NRA has lied?

Apples and oranges anyways, there is a huge difference between putting out PR statements that skew the facts and making a multi-year investment in emplacing a mole in a rival organization. I am certain even you can see the difference.

Answer mine first, please. Skew facts = lying. Brady bunch has done it.

 

[Pugs]

By membership in the GOA, I would assume that you support many of the NRA's goals and not those of the anti-gun groups targeted. Hence, probable sympathy for the NRA and its 'presumed' tactic.

Cripes Flash, I have sympathy for a lot of things that doesn't make me a slave to them, it makes me a thinker. You may not be a liberal but you really don't make much sense sometimes.

 

[NozeMan]

Then maybe the NRA ought to man up and say something, rather than clam up an say nothing. That in itself says something.

If they truly have no ties to her, than yeah, it would look good to say so. I'm not ashamed to say that I'm a member of the NRA. I'd also agree with that using a spy tactic isn't exactly ethical, but groups like the Brady Campaign don't exactly put all the facts on the table either. The gun conotrol battle is what it is, a very divisive issues and I've picked my side. Trust me, I'd rather see the supporters of gun rights win out based on the facts, which is where I think our recent success has come from.

 

[picklesuit]

I think it shows good sense on the NRA's part in trying to get a leg up on the competition. Corporate/philanthropic/governmental espionage is not new. I sure don't remember seeing anyone bitch when PETA shows up at auctions/slaughterhouses looking to cause trouble. AND nobody seems to get too bent out of shape that the government (FBI/CIA) gets involved in countergovernment groups so they have an idea what is coming at them. I think if the NRA was smart enough to get someone in the highest level of their biggest opposition, good on them! If the anti-gun groups were smart enough to get Jim Brady elected the head of the NRA, they would...There are no proprietary rights at stake here, just good old propaganda, from BOTH sides.
See the Brady website
http://www.bradycampaign.org/

note it is a CAMPAIGN, not a business (though many people make money campaigning/protesting/lobbying)

All I see here is sour grapes by a group that got outwitted, and an admittedly anti-Second Amendment media trying to play to the idiot crowd. Looks like they have succeeded.


Edit: FWIW I am not a member of the NRA, I don't want the government to have me on a list with the gun owners, otherwise they will know to come for me first (Red Dawn anybody?)

 

[A4sForever]

I think it shows good sense on the NRA's part in trying to get a leg up on the competition. Corporate/philanthropic/governmental espionage is not new. I sure don't remember seeing anyone bitch when PETA shows up at auctions/slaughterhouses looking to cause trouble. AND nobody seems to get too bent out of shape that the government (FBI/CIA) gets involved in countergovernment groups so they have an idea what is coming at them. I think if the NRA was smart enough to get someone in the highest level of their biggest opposition, good on them! If the anti-gun groups were smart enough to get Jim Brady elected the head of the NRA, they would...There are no proprietary rights at stake here, just good old propaganda, from BOTH sides.
See the Brady website
http://www.bradycampaign.org/

note it is a CAMPAIGN, not a business (though many people make money campaigning/protesting/lobbying)

All I see here is sour grapes by a group that got outwitted, and an admittedly anti-Second Amendment media trying to play to the idiot crowd. Looks like they have succeeded.

+1

All quite correct ...

 

[scoober78]

On a sorta related note...

I am finally established up here and Whidbey and on the advice of a few forum members, undertook a trip up to Kesselring's. First what an amazing shop and crew. They really have their #$%^ in one sock. You really owe them a crack at your business if you are up here.

Here is my tie in...When you walk in, there is a large sign on the back wall that says "If you care about your gun rights, join the NRA at this shop." They will sign you up on the spot.

I think they would be thrilled to know, as would I, that a few cents of my membership is going to undermine idiocy.

Glad to be back gentlemen.

 

[Flash]

Answer mine first, please. Skew facts = lying. Brady bunch has done it.

And yet the NRA has skewed facts/lying as well, and yet I have yet to see anyone here speak against that.

I don't avidly follow the debate since I don't feel too passionately about the issue, so why should I speak up at every little sin? Both sides lie, I would be apretty busy man. But more importantly, I am not here to defend whatever tactics the anti-gun lobby has used, I am condeming the tactic of the NRA to use a mole. Something that was unethical at best and possibly illegal depending on the information gained. I would argue it is a much greater sin than just lying in some PR release.

So quit trying to deflect the debate from the original issue. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the anti-gun lobby has sinned in lying doesn't give the NRA to use whatever tactic they deem necessary to counter them. Especially one that makes lying/skewing facts pale in comparison to their tactic.

Cripes Flash, I have sympathy for a lot of things that doesn't make me a slave to them, it makes me a thinker. You may not be a liberal but you really don't make much sense sometimes.

I am not accusing you of being a slave, just possibly biased enough to dismiss what the NRA has done as insignificant.

If they truly have no ties to her, than yeah, it would look good to say so. I'm not ashamed to say that I'm a member of the NRA. I'd also agree with that using a spy tactic isn't exactly ethical, but groups like the Brady Campaign don't exactly put all the facts on the table either. The gun conotrol battle is what it is, a very divisive issues and I've picked my side. Trust me, I'd rather see the supporters of gun rights win out based on the facts, which is where I think our recent success has come from.

And yet they haven't, strikes me as cowardice not to say anything.

It is not their advocacy that I am arguing against, it is their tactic of emplacing a mole in a rival organization.

 

[Harrier Dude]

I think it shows good sense on the NRA's part in trying to get a leg up on the competition. Corporate/philanthropic/governmental espionage is not new. I sure don't remember seeing anyone bitch when PETA shows up at auctions/slaughterhouses looking to cause trouble. AND nobody seems to get too bent out of shape that the government (FBI/CIA) gets involved in countergovernment groups so they have an idea what is coming at them. I think if the NRA was smart enough to get someone in the highest level of their biggest opposition, good on them! If the anti-gun groups were smart enough to get Jim Brady elected the head of the NRA, they would...There are no proprietary rights at stake here, just good old propaganda, from BOTH sides.
See the Brady website
http://www.bradycampaign.org/

note it is a CAMPAIGN, not a business (though many people make money campaigning/protesting/lobbying)

All I see here is sour grapes by a group that got outwitted, and an admittedly anti-Second Amendment media trying to play to the idiot crowd. Looks like they have succeeded.


Edit: FWIW I am not a member of the NRA, I don't want the government to have me on a list with the gun owners, otherwise they will know to come for me first (Red Dawn anybody?)

And nobody ever gets in trouble for spying on a campaign.....

 

[feddoc]

And yet the NRA has skewed facts/lying as well, and yet I have yet to see anyone here speak against that.

I don't avidly follow the debate since I don't feel too passionately about the issue, so why should I speak up at every little sin? Both sides lie, I would be apretty busy man. But more importantly, I am not here to defend whatever tactics the anti-gun lobby has used, I am condeming the tactic of the NRA to use a mole. Something that was unethical at best and possibly illegal depending on the information gained. I would argue it is a much greater sin than just lying in some PR release.

So quit trying to deflect the debate from the original issue. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the anti-gun lobby has sinned in lying doesn't give the NRA to use whatever tactic they deem necessary to counter them. Especially one that makes lying/skewing facts pale in comparison to their tactic.



I am not accusing you of being a slave, just possibly biased enough to dismiss what the NRA has done as insignificant.



And yet they haven't, strikes me as cowardice not to say anything.

It is not their advocacy that I am arguing against, it is their tactic of emplacing a mole in a rival organization.

Ok, so you can't answer my original question. Fair enough.

When you said this: "Especially one that makes lying/skewing facts pale in comparison to their tactic. " are you suggesting that spying is a greater transgression than lying? Even if it isn't illegal?

 

[squeeze]

Hey, wow, another reason for me to hate the NRA. Just what I needed.

Look, you want your message to be the "right" one, you better take the ethical high ground.

/From my cold dead hands... the NRA will never get a cent from me willingly

 

[Flash]

I think it shows good sense on the NRA's part in trying to get a leg up on the competition.

Corporate/philanthropic/governmental espionage is not new. I sure don't remember seeing anyone bitch when PETA shows up at auctions/slaughterhouses looking to cause trouble. AND nobody seems to get too bent out of shape that the government (FBI/CIA) gets involved in countergovernment groups so they have an idea what is coming at them. I think if the NRA was smart enough to get someone in the highest level of their biggest opposition, good on them! If the anti-gun groups were smart enough to get Jim Brady elected the head of the NRA, they would...There are no proprietary rights at stake here, just good old propaganda, from BOTH sides.

I largely don't agree with PETA's tactics either, but they are often exposing illegal activities. What is the anti-gun lobby doing that is illegal?

And you ought bone up on some facts. All domestic surveillance has to be legally justified and approved by the government and/or the courts. The government has a legal basis in what they do and is supervised closely, defending our country. If there is no threat, then it is illegal. The same applies to the CIA and other governnent agencies operating overseas, operating under rules and regulations that govern their conduct and their targets. And just in case you were wondering, they are defending this country from threats, not a rival lobbying group.

Industrial espionage, where one company attepts to obtain privileged information from another, is illegal. If the 'mole' obtained privileged information from the groups she was a part and passed that on, she could have possibly broken the law. But as some group members have noted, most of the activities she took part in were public and therefore were probably not illegal.

And it gets back to the whole basis of using this tactic, why do it in the first place? I think it shows a lot on the character of the people involved, and reflects very poorly on them.

 

[Flash]

Ok, so you can't answer my original question. Fair enough.

You couldn't answer mine either, so I guess we are even.

When you said this: "Especially one that makes lying/skewing facts pale in comparison to their tactic. " are you suggesting that spying is a greater transgression than lying? Even if it isn't illegal?

In this case, the spy is the mich greater sin in this case. It was done with malice forethought over a great period of time. Lying is not justifiable either, but at least they are even there.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Using a mole who misrepresents herself to gain information on groups opposed to you, that in itself I think is unethical.

So you think HUMINT is unethical?

 

[A4sForever]

And lest anyone misunderstand -- at the end of the day it's got nothing to do w/ "gun guys" or the NRA, truth be told.

This IS a war. We are at WAR w/ these people and it's a war being fought on many fronts, i.e. gun rights/gun control/2nd Amendment is just one of many "fronts" of the culture war that's been raging in the U.S. for decades -- all being fought for the very heart & soul of our country.

Don't think so??? Then drop on down to some of our gun-control groups (you can substitute any number of "social activist" groups/causes herein ... ) and listen to what they have to say ... I've dealt w/ the left-leaning for many, many years in local and state politics. They're not "pretty" people ...

Don't agree?? Who cares??