PDA

View Full Version : Where is the NRA on Eric Holder?


18DAI
January 29, 2009, 03:49 PM
Hello NRA!!?? Are you home?

How about standing up for us and screaming a little about Eric Holder!!

Al Norris
January 29, 2009, 04:14 PM
Why should the NRA use any political capital over an issue that will not be affected?

Barring the revelation of some (really bad) criminal activity, Eric Holder is going to be confirmed, regardless of what any lobby may say or do.

dburkhead
January 29, 2009, 04:43 PM
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4307

While one might argue that they haven't done much, frankly, I have to agree with Antipitas. Why waste political capital on a battle that's not going to be won no matter what they do?

azredhawk44
January 29, 2009, 04:44 PM
He (Eric Holder) is on the front cover of First Freedom Magazine...

Granted, that's preaching to the choir; but I am sure they're whispering here and there on Capitol Hill.

18DAI
January 29, 2009, 04:53 PM
While I agree that any NRA actions would probably be futile, what will simply conceeding gain us?

Do we now sit by quietly and say nothing? Do nothing at all? What happened to the "educating" byline of the NRA?

I don't advocate that tact with these people. Holder is a first degree anti. For crying out loud, he helped pardon two Puerto Rican terrorists. This is going to be the nations chief law enforcement officer?

Maybe I'm simply old and grumpy. Regards 18DAI.

dburkhead
January 29, 2009, 05:11 PM
They didn't "simply concede" nor does "sit by and do nothing" match what was done.

Letters were written. Displeasure was expressed. The information about this was put out (although perhaps it could have been emphasized more).

However, it wasn't worth putting a lot of time and effort into something that wasn't, and isn't, going to be changed.

I've expressed my displeasure to both my Senators. Frankly, I probably could have saved the postage.

alan
January 30, 2009, 12:35 AM
Al Norris writes on Holder, probably correctly, sad to note:

Barring the revelation of some (really bad) criminal activity, Eric Holder is going to be confirmed, regardless of what any lobby may say or do.

So much for the antics/activities of One Of The Worlds Great Deliberative Bodies, The U.S. Senate, and it's membership.

One wonders as to the following however. How many gun owners, across the nation, have contacted their U.S. Senators to voice opposition to the confirmation of Mr. Holder?

Al Norris
January 30, 2009, 12:47 AM
Folks, all I'm really trying to say, is that you must really pick your battles.

This particular battle can't be won. Better to save the ammo for those that can be won. Remember, Holder himself says that gun-control, in light of Heller will be a lot tougher.

Should we get a couple of Circuit courts going to incorporation, and the Supremes agree with it (a doable thing in the next 2-3 years), it will be tougher yet.

nemoaz
January 30, 2009, 02:27 AM
Why should the NRA use any political capital over an issue that will not be affected?+1. The battle was lost. Whomever Obama picks will follows Obama's antigun orders no matter what the AG's personal opinions are. The WH was lost. The battle will be fought in Congress.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 30, 2009, 09:32 AM
Hello NRA!!?? Are you home?

How about standing up for us and screaming a little about Eric Holder!!

The NRA sent a letter to the new President saying it had serious concerns about Holder. It notified members of Holder's anti-gun tendencies immediately and encouraged members to contact their Congressional representatives. It sent Dr. Halbrook to Congress in order to testify against Holder's nomination.

Exactly what more do you want them to do?

Frankly, the whole battle is pretty futile since Holder is likely to be nominated regardless given the number of votes the Democrats have in the Senate (59). The time to stop Holder was by not electing the man who nominated him - a goal that the NRA spent over $1 million a day on during the last election.

thallub
February 5, 2009, 08:06 AM
Holder was confirmed by a vote of 75-21. Note that some senators who claim to support the 2nd Amendment voted to confirm Holder.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=32&chamber=S&congress=1111&tally=1

ZeSpectre
February 5, 2009, 08:33 AM
Why should the NRA use any political capital over an issue that will not be affected?

Antipitas,
While I understand completely what you are saying, if the NRA doesn't start making some visible waves soon it's going to loose a LOT more of it's "political capitol" as it sheds members who are feeling like they don't do anything.

Now you and I both know that there is a tremendous amount of "back room" politics happening that is never seen by the general public but we're in an era of "bread and circuses" and if the NRA doesn't do some seriously public circuses soon they're going to have some real trouble ahead.

Sarge
February 5, 2009, 08:42 AM
A better question might be "Where were American gun owners while two branches of government (The two branches of government, I might add, which appoint and confirm the third!) got handed over to people who have demonstrated, time and time again, their extreme antigun sentiments?"

The NRA can bark at congress until they're blue in the face, but they can't 'bite' as long as gun owners elect those who hold the Bill of Rights in the same regard as toilet paper.

This problem was caused by gun owners; only gun owners can fix it.

alan
February 5, 2009, 08:09 PM
Notwithstanding the correct comment, unfortunately so, by Antipitas, I wonder re the following.

1. How many gun owners got on to their U.S. Senators to voice their disapproval of Holder's confirmation, assuming of course that they disapproved.
2. How many gun owners, here or elsewhere will trouble to remember of took up, when next there are elections for seats in the U.S. senate, who voted how.

Additionally, the following strike me as interesting points raised by a coup-le of commentators here.

thallub wrote:

Holder was confirmed by a vote of 75-21. Note that some senators who claim to support the 2nd Amendment voted to confirm Holder.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...s=1111&tally=1

ZeSpectre quoted and wrote:
Why should the NRA use any political capital over an issue that will not be affected?

Antipitas,
While I understand completely what you are saying, if the NRA doesn't start making some visible waves soon it's going to loose a LOT more of it's "political capitol" as it sheds members who are feeling like they don't do anything.

Now you and I both know that there is a tremendous amount of "back room" politics happening that is never seen by the general public but we're in an era of "bread and circuses" and if the NRA doesn't do some seriously public circuses soon they're going to have some real trouble ahead.

Sarge wrote:

A better question might be "Where were American gun owners while two branches of government (The two branches of government, I might add, which appoint and confirm the third!) got handed over to people who have demonstrated, time and time again, their extreme antigun sentiments?"

The NRA can bark at congress until they're blue in the face, but they can't 'bite' as long as gun owners elect those who hold the Bill of Rights in the same regard as toilet paper.

This problem was caused by gun owners; only gun owners can fix it.

-------------------------

Seems to me that some interesting points are offered, as is the case with questions asked.

Any .45
February 5, 2009, 09:36 PM
Alan, I most definetly agree with you. I have alot of friends of mine that are minorities both black and hispanic that are almost as big firearm enthusiasts as me and voted for him because he was a minority, they had no idea of his or Biden anti gun policies or any of there policies period and I feel that the fact that he is a minority is what got him elected. Because now those friends of mine are panicing buy everything they can cursing themselves. I believe he is a very intelligent individual, and capable of doing good things, but not of running this country. Well not the way our fore fathers intended it to be ran. With our gov't protecting our rights and the first and second amendments being the core of this country. Because honestly, I have been to and have lived in countries that neither one are allowed by those gov'ts and thats what makes this country great. But i know I'm preaching to the choir, just wanted to throw my rants and raves in there, I've had a really bad day, because of our new presdent, I can't find ammo, I can't find Anything at a normal price, because people are so worried about what he's going to try and take from us, they are buying up everything, not that I blame them, just him.:mad::mad::mad:

Al Norris
February 5, 2009, 11:29 PM
Just so everyone can see what their Senator did:

Yea : 75 Members
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ) <-- Anybody surprised on this one?
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Ted Kaufman (D-DE)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Roland Burris (D-IL)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Richard Lugar (R-IN)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
George Voinovich (R-OH)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Robert Casey (D-PA)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT) <--Utahns should
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) <--------be ashamed
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Jim Webb (D-VA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
John Rockefeller (D-WV)

Nay : 21 Members
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Thune (R-SD)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)

Not Voting : 3 Members
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

You will please note that almost as many Republicans voted for Holder as those who voted against.

alan
February 6, 2009, 11:04 PM
Antipitas:

I may be a dumb bunny, but Arlen Specter's vote for confirmation was, like many of his actions, something of a disappointment. The names of others, Specter aside were disappointing too.

Any .45:

Why the Republicans ever thought of running McCain/Palen, let alone actually doing it is something I cannot understand. Possibly I'm just thick headed.

Having said that, and with reference to the people you mentioned, they haven't the least excuse, as the records of both Obama and Biden were long standing and quite well publicized. They spent their electoral pennies as they chose. I hope they sleep well with the chains their votes may well have helped to install. By the way, re chains installed, history clearly shows that such chains bear most heavily on MINORITIES, as I recall.