Wow. Here's a weird story and some awesome reporting from Mother Jones. The article's subhead sums things up about as well as anything else: "Mary McFate was a prominent gun control activist. Mary Lou Sapone was a freelance spy with an NRA connection. They are the same person." Now, naturally, gun control activists write large are worried that this isn't the only example and that their movement may contain more moles planted by the gun lobby.
« Active Grannies | Main | Mocking Messiah »
Something About Mary
30 Jul 2008 12:42 pm
Comments (12)
Fascinating story indeed. As a gun enthusiast, I've been skeptical of the NRA's antics for a while. It wouldn't surprise me if they were in the business of battling foes that were largely of their own creation.
Did you see the bit about her son and daughter in law, who apparently worked with her? The son is currently working as Sean McFate at the Bipartisan Policy Center, in national security.
WTF?
Matt: Have you ever seen Citizen Ruth (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115906/)? I wonder if the folks at the NRA have . . .
Your buddy Spencer Ackerman just had a glowing write up of McFate/Sapone's daughter-in-law, Montgomery, on July 8. Use the google.
I should hope the NRA has got spies in all the gun control organizations: It would be irresponsible to not have them.
These organizations are conspiracies against a civil liberty. Ok, a civil liberty liberals don't like, and the ACLU isn't willing to acknowledge even after losing in the Supreme court, but still, a civil liberty. They're no more admirable than any other bunch of yahoos who band together to try to attack our rights.
I believe the SPLC does something similar with the Aryan Nation type groups...
Fucking cylons. They look like people.
Sort of like how John Lott and Mary Rosh are the same person?
These organizations are conspiracies against a civil liberty.
Rather like anti-slavery activists were before the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment?
Or maybe, given your politics, you think the 13th Amendment was a bad idea?
The Constitution has accepted mechanisms in place for implementation, interpretation, and change. To campaign in a legal way for a certain type of implementation or interpretation, or even for fundamental changes in the document itself, is the very reverse of treasonable. The 2nd Amendment itself is, after all, an amendment, a change or supplement to the core document. By your reasoning it should have been illegal to advocate, sponsor, or adopt. I doubt if the Founders would approve.
Indeed, those who say a democratic campaign to influence the implementation or change the features of the Constitution is treasonable are themselves traitors. They are declaring themselves to be too "good" to have to pay attention to basic Constitutional procedure, and they thus put themselves beyond the law.
Or at least they make us wonder whether people who can articulate such arguments aren't confusing their guns with their dicks and their dicks with their brains.
"Rather like anti-slavery activists were before the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment?"
Whoa! That's an ironic accusation for somebody defending an element of Jim Crow.
"Rather like anti-slavery activists were before the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment?"
Whoa! That's an ironic accusation for somebody defending an element of Jim Crow.
That's annoying. Sorry 'bout the double post.
Comments closed August 13, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Uh, if they can hire prostitutes to help close business deals, then this isn't exactly surprising.
.
Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 30, 2008 1:00 PM