|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 9, 2012, 01:01 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Besides the Stand Your Ground laws, here are some other initiatives supported by ALEC/NRA that the Center for Media and Democracy thinks are "bad."
Recent ALEC "Model" Bills on Guns
|
April 9, 2012, 01:04 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
|
|
April 9, 2012, 01:07 PM | #53 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 9, 2012, 01:14 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
|
|
April 9, 2012, 01:18 PM | #55 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
Mainly to demagogue the words of the ex-Green Jobs Czar Van Jones and his new catch phrase the Kill at Will Law which was in Mr. Jones opinion...."Because of ALEC". Along with quite a few other things, but "Because of ALEC" was the basic repeatable mantra following each wacky statement, sermon style. I have some pretty good quotes that are obviously gun activism related, but they are also purely the worst type of political in nature, thereby upsetting the apple cart. I suppose the NRA may know what it's getting itself into. Still....it's moonbat territory, hearing those types rant in the general direction of each other over NRA legislation, membersm, and direction. Probobly all timed to coincide with the OP article. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...-To-Spread-It-
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by alloy; April 9, 2012 at 03:43 PM. |
||
April 9, 2012, 01:19 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
I recall one year at the annual convention, NRA had Ted Kennedy as a guest speaker. If that's no reaching out, I don't know what is!
This artical looks like a CNN hatchet job.
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
April 9, 2012, 01:24 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Yep it certainly does.
|
April 9, 2012, 01:33 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
My post from another site:
Its true that most of our national gun control legislation was accomplished by "liberals". We all know the history of those onerous acts. My problem with the NRA putting all their eggs in the "conservative" basket is this: 1. "Conservatives" did a net nothing for US gunowners when they ruled the white house and both houses of congress. They could have rolled back the Hughes Amendment, the bans on importation of fireams by previous presidents, the ban on concealed carry in national parks and parts of the GCA 1968. Instead they did nothing. 2. In 1984 and again in 1986, a "conservative" US president was first to ban long guns under the provisions of the sporting purposes clause of the GCA 1968. Other presidents would cite this precedent when they banned long guns from import. This same president banned carry of handguns in national parks. After leaving office he joined other ex-presidents in shilling for the AWB. That president had banned the carry of loaded handguns when he was governor of his home state. Today, the NRA-ILA calls him the "gunowners champion". 3. In 1989 a "conservative" president banned about 40 semi-auto milsurp firearms from import based on the sporting purposes clause of the GCA 1968. 4. The AWB passed the US house by one vote: 38 "conservatives", including the house minority leader, voted in favor of the AWB. 76 "liberals" voted against the AWB. 5. A "conservative" presidential candidate, trolling for liberal votes, promised to sign an extension of the AWB if it reached his desk: Thankfully it did not. http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/importban-kf.htm For a long time "conservative" politicians have played the lesser of two evils game on gunowners and we have sucked up the Kool Aide. We don't need an NRA thats in cahoots with either party. Last edited by thallub; April 9, 2012 at 01:40 PM. |
April 9, 2012, 02:28 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,445
|
Quote:
When there is a pro-gun Democrat, the NRA does not hesitate to support them as was the case with both of the politicians that I cited in my previous post. Likewise, when a Republican supports gun control, the NRA doesn't hesitate to fiercely oppose him. For example, the NRA is quite critical of Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R-NYC) and witheld their endorsement for former President George W. Bush's re-election campaign until after the '94 AWB had failed to be renewed (to be fair, Bush was luke-warm at best on 2A but he was still much better on the issue than his opponent, Sen. Kerry, was). However, the fact remains that pro-gun Democrats are, and have been for decades, the minority within their chosen party. |
|
April 9, 2012, 03:01 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
All the more reason they should be supported.
|
April 9, 2012, 06:17 PM | #61 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
Don't know if it's a good idea or not, but how the left feels about it shouldn't be of the slightest concern. |
|
April 9, 2012, 06:25 PM | #62 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Anyone who has done any lobbying realizes lobbyists, for the most part, are mercenaries. They go wherever the paycheck is and if they have ten minutes of free time they fill in with another client. MOST work for dozens of organizations. They peddle connections, not ideology. A paid career working for the NRA and another conservative group is not at all surprising. It also isn't anything at all new.
I think the NRA has generally been lopsided in supporting Republicans, but they have also supported a few Democrats who supported gun rights and infuriated paying members. Everyone forget the last election cycle? I'm no fan of the NRA as a defender as the 2A, as my sig indicates, but I saw this article and laughed. |
April 9, 2012, 11:51 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
This is for those who can't read past the topic header. There is no proof that the NRA is promoting anything other than gun related positions. A lobbyist they use also lobbies for another organization which sometimes cooperates with the NRA on gun related issues like the "stand your ground" laws. CNN is using half-truths and innuendo to damage the NRA and those of us who love firearms.
|
April 10, 2012, 09:53 AM | #64 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
As KyJim pointed out, there is nothing to this story. It is little more than an attempt to divide gun owners. The NRA has a 76-member Board of Directors, and not suprisingly given the conservative support for the Second Amendment, some of them are conservative.
However, by no means all of those members are... you may remember past NRA Board of Directors such as Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) (who would later throw us under the bus for the AWB and thus become unpopular with the NRA). Rep. Harold Volkmer (D-MO) was a member of the NRA Board of Directors until his death in 2011. Roy Innis is no longer a Democrat, having switched to the Libertarian Party after unsuccessful primary runs against Mario Cuomo and David Dinkins; but he is not exactly a conservative. You can bet that current sitting Board of Directors members, like Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) (who I might note addressed the NRA Annual Meeting in 2008 AND 2010 for those who were complaining about the current lineup), would be screaming bloody murder if the NRA was using member funds to promote the Republican party. It is the height of irony that as recently as 2010, this board was alight with irate conservatives complaining about the NRA taking an exemption on the DISCLOSE Act and giving favorable press to Sen. Harry Reid and now here we are in 2012 and people are complaining that the NRA is too conservative and linked to other conservative causes. That right there is fairly solid proof that the NRA is about the Second Amendment - both sides are mad at it because it won't identify more closely with their causes. |
April 10, 2012, 11:18 AM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,340
|
Quote:
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." - James Madison
|
|
April 10, 2012, 10:43 PM | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 995
|
Quote:
Assault Weapons Ban http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00295 H.R. 3355. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. August 25, 1994 Passed by a vote of 61-38 Republicans vote for/against: 7/36; 16% FOR Democrats vote for/against: 54/2; 96% FOR 89% of the FOR votes were cast by the Democrats. Brady Bill http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00394 H.R. 1025. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993. November 20, 1993 Passed by a vote of 63-36 Republicans vote for/against: 16/28; 36% FOR Democrats vote for/against: 47/8; 85% FOR 75% of the FOR votes were cast by the Democrats. Commerce in Arms http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00206 S.397. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. July 26, 2005 Passed by a vote of 66-32 Republicans vote for/against: 53/1; 98% FOR Democrats vote for/against: 13/30; 30% FOR 97% of the AGAINST votes were cast by the Democrats. This last vote data and calculations do not include the one senator who voted as Independent. Some of the Democrats voting No on this issue are the headlining members of the Gun Control Hall of Shame: Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer.
__________________
I am not a real bullet, nor do I play one on television. American socialism: Democrats trying to get Republicans to provide for them. Last edited by Silver Bullet; April 10, 2012 at 10:49 PM. |
|
April 10, 2012, 10:47 PM | #67 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 995
|
Quote:
Not quite true, though: the conservatives in the previous administration passed the Commerce in Arms act (see previous post) to prevent gun manufacturers and gun shops from being sued into oblivion with frivolous lawsuits.
__________________
I am not a real bullet, nor do I play one on television. American socialism: Democrats trying to get Republicans to provide for them. |
|
April 10, 2012, 10:55 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 995
|
Bush also signed a law saying it was illegal to confiscate firearms during times of emergency.
Has any other president signed anything pro gun in his presidency ?
__________________
I am not a real bullet, nor do I play one on television. American socialism: Democrats trying to get Republicans to provide for them. |
April 11, 2012, 09:08 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
OK, fans - here we go. We discuss anti and progun issues. If you want to confound liberal and conservative with that - we get nowhere.
Bush said he would sign the AWB, IIRC. So, this is very near a shut down. Stay on the NRA or bye bye.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 11, 2012, 10:00 AM | #70 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is one of the most under-rated pro-gun peices of legislation ever.
I think gun owners under estimate it's importance because it doesn't seem to have an immediate and direct impact on them like mag cap laws, a state-approved list of weapons, flat out bans like in Chicago & DC - things like that. But the anti-gunners rightly understood that litigation was an extremely powerful tool for accomplishing their goals. |
April 11, 2012, 10:00 AM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
Okay, over-arching confusing here.
If none of my money, well my father's money, that is paid in NRA dues is used for legal issues, then where is the money necessary for the NRA to branch out thier lobbyinh coming from? The SAF is looking better all the time. All I got from the NRA was a hat.
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
April 11, 2012, 10:25 AM | #72 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 11, 2012, 10:35 AM | #73 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
On the one hand - I want to say that the SAF has done more for me in Illinois than the NRA has, looking at the McDonald case.
Looking at Sheperd v Madigan and Moore v Madigan, while the results were the same in the lower courts, I think the NRA lawyers could have done a better job with Sheperd - especially forgetting to site Woolard as authority. But on the other hand - the NRA has done a ton of stuff on the legislative front for me in Illinois. We have an NRA lobbyist who is right there in the halls with the Illinois State representatives and Senators. My NRA lobbyist posts of a forum to give us the inside info on the legislative process, the back door deals, the political manuvering, the strategy and tactics. It can get very confusing and this NRA guy works tirelessly to break it down for us. I do think that the NRA should stick to gun issues (I don't think the posted story makes a case that they are branching out). One of the problems I do have with the NRA though, at least in Illinois, is that new candidates don't get a grade. But in Illinois we have "The Machine", the "Democratic Machine" The power epicenter for the machine is Chicago. Even if there is a pro-gun democrat in Illinois, they are going to have to play by rules, tow the party line and vote anti-gun. So the NRA's position of only grading politicians based on their voting record or how they answer a question - has not helped in Illinois. I would think at some point the ISRA & NRA would just start giving these new candidates a failing grade based on their membership in an organization that has proven to be anti-gun. |
April 11, 2012, 11:23 AM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
|
April 11, 2012, 11:37 AM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|