The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 9, 2012, 01:04 PM   #52
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Quote:
if there are no Democrats, how come the NRA is not cultivating those relationships?

They have cultivated those relationships, and they get screeched at by rank-and-file members for it.
Why? With the growth of ownership, the organization should be even more neutral now. Probably the topic for another thread though.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old April 9, 2012, 01:07 PM   #53
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,067
Quote:
With the growth of ownership, the organization should be even more neutral now.
The organization is, but the partisan zealots (who'd love the CNN article to be true) are the most vocal and shrill.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 9, 2012, 01:14 PM   #54
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Irwin
"He said the NRA's work is cut out for it, because gun ownership is on the decline in America."
Total firearms ownership in the US is estimated at 270 million firearms. From 11/30/98 to 3/31/12, there were over 138 million NICS background checks. If that reflects a decline in ownership, I would hate to see the type of buying frenzy that would represent an increase.
gc70 is offline  
Old April 9, 2012, 01:18 PM   #55
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
I don't interpret that as NRA endorsement of Beck and North.~Silver Bullet
Is Glenn Beck as the keynote speaker this Saturday "an endorsement", and if not, has anyone told Mr. Beck? Cause he spent the better part of two hours on it, today only.
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:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla

Last edited by alloy; April 9, 2012 at 03:43 PM.
alloy is offline  
Old April 9, 2012, 01:19 PM   #56
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 628
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
JimPage is offline  
Old April 9, 2012, 01:24 PM   #57
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,194
Yep it certainly does.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old April 9, 2012, 01:33 PM   #58
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,065
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.
thallub is offline  
Old April 9, 2012, 02:28 PM   #59
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,846
Quote:
Having said that, when you pop open the (new wow high techie looking) NRA website there's Glenn Beck and Oliver North.
Glenn Beck????

Not seeing a lot of Democrats at the Leadership Forum
"Leadership Forum with featured speakers
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps prominent pro-2A Democrats are simply rare? While there are certainly exceptions, including members of this very forum, it is undeniable that anti's, more often than not, have the letter "D" next to their name when they run for public office. Unfortunately, a list of most of the prominent Democrats in national politics reads much like a "who's who" of gun control supporters including former President Clinton, Sen. Feinstein, Sen Schumer, Sen. Kerry, the late Sen. Kennedy, Rep. McCarthy, Rep. Boxer, and Rep. Pelosi. Also, all three of the most historically significant federal gun control laws were passed under Democrat Administrations: '34 NFA (Roosevelt), '68 GCA (Johnson), and '94 AWB (Clinton).

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.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old April 9, 2012, 03:01 PM   #60
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,194
All the more reason they should be supported.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old April 9, 2012, 06:17 PM   #61
Nnobby45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,148
Quote:
I, for one, question this decision. The left/Democrats are already characterizing the NRA as a branch of the Republican party.
Ah Gary, the left already despises the NRA and can't demonize them enough. I just read that the Zimmerman-Martin incident was the NRA's fault for supporting the "Stand Your Ground Law" even though it it grants no right to chase after a suspect and try to detain him.

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.
Nnobby45 is offline  
Old April 9, 2012, 06:25 PM   #62
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,759
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.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 9, 2012, 11:51 PM   #63
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,468
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.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 10, 2012, 09:53 AM   #64
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,641
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 10, 2012, 11:18 AM   #65
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
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.
Just to repeat for the reading impaired and knee-jerk reactionaries. If you rely on CNN, or scanning headlines in general, for your 2A information then you might want to rethink that.
__________________
"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
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old April 10, 2012, 10:43 PM   #66
Silver Bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 992
Quote:
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.
Senate votes:

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.
Silver Bullet is offline  
Old April 10, 2012, 10:47 PM   #67
Silver Bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 992
Quote:
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.
Which, if true, would still be a reason to vote for them as opposed to the liberals who have done a net negative for us.

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.
Silver Bullet is offline  
Old April 10, 2012, 10:55 PM   #68
Silver Bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 992
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.
Silver Bullet is offline  
Old April 11, 2012, 09:08 AM   #69
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,545
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.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 11, 2012, 10:00 AM   #70
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old April 11, 2012, 10:00 AM   #71
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,379
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
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old April 11, 2012, 10:25 AM   #72
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,067
Quote:
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 ILA gets their money through donations, collected through those mailers almost everybody throws out and those phone calls almost everyone hangs up on.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 11, 2012, 10:35 AM   #73
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old April 11, 2012, 11:23 AM   #74
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
The ILA gets their money through donations, collected through those mailers almost everybody throws out and those phone calls almost everyone hangs up on.
So in addition to Pop's shelling out whatever our yearly fees are, I would have to donate to the ILA to ensure legal action?
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old April 11, 2012, 11:37 AM   #75
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
I would have to donate to the ILA to ensure legal action?
I don't think you can ensure legal action by simply donating to the NRA-ILA. Your donation goes into the ILA pot as it were to help fund all the NRA-ILA activities. That may or may not include every issue you are personally interested in. Remember, the NRA is a national organization.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14577 seconds with 7 queries