View Full Version : For those who claim the NRA does not support Democrats.

January 23, 2009, 09:27 AM
Well it looks like NY has a new senator. Patterson has by all accounts chosen Kristen Gillibrand to replace Clinton as the junior senator from NY.


Of course she is a Democrat, Paterson is not going to choose a Republican but she has supposedly a 100% rating from the NRA and is strongly opposed by the hag Carolyn McCarthy who vows to oppose her in the primaries.


McCarthy knocks Gillibrand as choice for Senate

BY REID J. EPSTEIN | [email protected]
January 23, 2009

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy said yesterday Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand's gun control views make her unacceptable for the U.S. Senate and threatened a primary challenge in 2010 if Gov. David A. Paterson selects the Hudson Democrat to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton.

McCarthy, who became a prominent gun-control advocate after her husband died and her son was injured in the 1993 massacre at the Long Island Rail Road's Merillon Avenue station that killed six people and injured 19 others, said she is "furious" about reports that Paterson today may select Gillibrand, who last year earned an "A" grade from the National Rifle Association.

"I've spent 15 years trying to prevent gun violence in this country, and if he does pick her and if no one goes and primaries her, I will primary her," McCarthy said. "I will do that. I'm not going to give up on this. I'm not going to let New York State get represented by someone who gets a 100 percent rating from the NRA."

Sen. Charles Schumer, who like McCarthy is a strong proponent of gun control, asked the Mineola Democrat to refrain from protesting Gillibrand's selection, McCarthy said.

"He said, 'Why don't you give her a chance?'" McCarthy said. "I said, 'I've talked to her on the floor, I'm sorry, I can't.'"

Schumer spokesman Josh Vlasto confirmed McCarthy called Schumer yesterday. He "made it clear to the congresswoman that he didn't know if it was Gillibrand, but if it was, like any Democrat, we should give that person a chance," Vlasto said.

McCarthy said she will boycott today's Albany ceremony in which she said she expects Paterson to announce Gillibrand as the Senate pick.

"I will not show any support whatsoever," she said. "The majority of New Yorkers are trying to reduce gun violence. I just feel that everybody should know what her record is. If she changes, let's see it."

Gillibrand, whose office did not return phone calls yesterday, touts her gun acumen on her Web site and said she intends to support the Second Amendment.

"I learned at an early age how to safely handle a gun and I believe that every law-abiding citizen should always have the right to own arms," she says on her Web site.

Nassau Democratic chairman Jay Jacobs said he did not expect McCarthy to follow through on her threat of a primary challenge. "What she meant to say is that if Gillibrand is selected, that she would need to moderate her views on gun control," he said.

Told of Jacobs' assessment, McCarthy said she intends to support a challenge should Gillibrand be selected.

I must say I am pleased. Patterson, who I have thought little of for his entire time in office, has finally done something I can agree with. So those who claim the NRA never supports a Dem can look here.


The National Rifle Association has endorsed U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-Greenport, in the 20th Congressional District race.

Gillibrand received an "A" rating, which indicates a "solidly pro-gun candidate," according to the NRA Web site.

The rating is based on the congresswoman's voting history on gun-related legislation.

Republican congressional candidate Alexander "Sandy" Treadwell received an "AQ" rating, based on his responses to a questionnaire on gun-related issues, according the NRA Web site.

Both candidates received the highest rating possible, but Treadwell's rating was based solely on answers to a questionnaire because he did not have a voting history, the NRA Web site said.

Look at that, the NRA supported a Dem over a Republican... You would think that was impossible given some of the anti NRA rants of late.

January 23, 2009, 10:00 AM
A very nice 'surprise' by the governor of N Y. The very fact that an anti gun zealot like McCarthy is so infuriated by her selection is just as encouraging as is the NRA endorsement of her.

January 23, 2009, 10:37 AM
While I can't remember the last Democrat I voted for, I can say that this might be one, depending on her opponent. I'm happy that someone from NYC wasn't picked...funny thing - they keep saying in the news that she's from upstate..I guess anywhere outside of NYC is considered upstate to some folks since I'd hardly consider Columbia County upstate....:rolleyes:

January 23, 2009, 10:52 AM
Anything that makes Caroline Mccarthy howl is good with me :)

WildbutsherepsthestatenowAlaska TM

January 23, 2009, 11:02 AM
The only potential issue with her background is that she was special counsel at HUD working for Cuomo in 2000. I wonder if she worked on the HUD deal with S&W.

January 23, 2009, 11:28 AM
Sounds like we have one more in your corner. :)

January 23, 2009, 11:30 AM

Here I'll pull out the gooodies out of this exposition of arcane NY politics

"The knocks on Gillibrand involve her breaks from Democratic orthodoxy on gun control and tax cuts and the competitive nature of her House district, which might be lost to a Republican if she were to leave.

Instead of insisting on rigid ideological purity, though, Democrats should appreciate the value of Gillibrand's heresies. For all of its emotional weight, gun control is largely a symbolic issue. It will play little or no role in the current Congress. But by opposing it, Gillibrand makes herself infinitely more appealing to conservative-leaning independent voters upstate, who could be up for grabs in '10. That they'd be receptive to Gillibrand is highly significant. The same, roughly, goes for her stance on the Bush tax cuts (which Obama himself now seems intent on keeping). "

WildthatsapragmaticdemsviewAlaska TM

January 23, 2009, 11:41 AM
The key thing is (and I feel this thread is soon to be locked as running astray) that Gun Control is no longer a party/party or ideology/ideology issue.......

Like Bill Campbell of HSM in Montana told me at dinner...you think that Max (Baucus) is ever going to vote for a gun control measure?

WildmypropheticwordsarecomingthroughAlaska TM

Bud Helms
January 23, 2009, 11:47 AM
This topic is politics. I agree that critical to this piece news is the point that the appointee is an NRA backed politician. And that is what makes it news to us ... and good news too. But the point, the subject, is politics.

We knew when the old L&P forum was shutdown and the new L&CR forum came up that we were going away from general political discussions. This one has no where to go except politics.

That said, we will leave this open as long as it doesn't degenerate into an old style L&P mud slinging. This is an exception to existing TFL policy, decided on the basis of the value of the news item and it's relationship to our mission.

Expect this to be closely moderated.

Shane Tuttle
January 23, 2009, 11:58 AM
Look at that, the NRA supported a Dem over a Republican... You would think that was impossible given some of the anti NRA rants of late.

I can see where you're coming from on people slamming the NRA. I also see both sides of the argument on the pros and cons of giving money to the NRA.

However, are you asserting the point that people hate/boycott the NRA mainly because they support some Democrats? I don't necessarily agree with that issue.

There have been plenty of gun supporting Democrats that the NRA has endorsed for the past several years, not just lately.

Bud Helms
January 23, 2009, 12:02 PM
Look at that, the NRA supported a Dem over a Republican... You would think that was impossible given some of the anti NRA rants of late.

Tuttle8, I took that to mean that Dems supporting RKBA were disappointed in the NRA's lean toward endorsing Republcans. I could be wrong. But I do agree with that last sentence in your post.

January 23, 2009, 12:14 PM
I have stated before that I don't see an outright gun ban (like the Clinton era ban) anytime soon. There is the possibility, however, that someone might introduce legislation pitched as "reasonable" regulation of firearms, like eliminating the so-called gun show "loophole." The question is whether Gillibrand would be strong enough as a senator to stand up to pressure on a cloture vote on a filibuster. Of course, that question might be legitimately asked of more than one sitting senator.

January 23, 2009, 12:26 PM
The fact that there will be a Senator from New York that actually supports the NRA is a significant historical event IMO. She will certainly have an opportunity to be a different voice than usually expected from Senators (and congressmen for that matter) from the N E block of states like NJ, Mass, etc. with their general distain for gun owners.

Shane Tuttle
January 23, 2009, 12:32 PM
Tuttle8, I took that to mean that Dems supporting RKBA were disappointed in the NRA's lean toward endorsing Republcans. I could be wrong. But I do agree with that last sentence in your post.

I must have misconstrued the context of Musketeer's statement. I had in my head that he meant members here and gunowners in general. I should have thought differently since he provided links supporting your thought and nothing of the sort about fellow gunowners...:o

Glenn E. Meyer
January 23, 2009, 12:40 PM
If she works out and is a strong voice for NY - this is a great thing as it may move the Democrats away from an antigun litmus test. I've said before that to preserve the RKBA it cannot be seen as just the preserve of one political party or one slice of the political spectrum. The tend for in-group loyalty on other issues among some RKBA tended to obscure that.

In the past, the issue was more spread across the party lines. For example, if true, this is a quote from Hubert Humphrey, who was a liberal democrat.

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)"

Al Norris
January 23, 2009, 12:44 PM
After a brief discussion, we've decided that this particular piece of news is important to the entire 2A community. Yes, this necessarily means that this thread is mostly, if not entirely, political in nature.

But because of the importance, I feel, as does Bud, that it is an issue we can make an exception for.

Let's keep this on topic, please. Moving to L&CR.

January 23, 2009, 12:50 PM
Al is the issue of media bias relevant here or should I avoid that one?

WildaskbudAlaska ™

Al Norris
January 23, 2009, 01:01 PM
It may become an issue as this (news) proceeds. Can we take a wait and see, attitude for now?

January 23, 2009, 01:45 PM
Having members of both parties support the RKBA is important. It means we have voices on both sides of the aisle and this can only help to further our cause.

My question is if you figured out the number of pro-gun house members of either party would we have a majority?

If you add this new senator, how many pro gun senators do we have?

I was pleasantly surprised with this news.

January 23, 2009, 03:15 PM
Thanks to the mods for keeping this open. Just to restate, I put it in general since I was posting this in relation to recent arguments that the NRA does nothing but support Republicans. I have been of the group saying the NRA-ILS makes best use of their money generally supporting Republicans but should certainly jump to support those Dems who are defenders of the 2A.

Of course there is plenty of potential for this to go political, hard for it not to...

No matter. As a NY resident this is the best bit of news on the 2A I have seen related to this state in a long while!

January 23, 2009, 03:34 PM
My question is if you figured out the number of pro-gun house members of either party would we have a majority?

If you add this new senator, how many pro gun senators do we have?

While it reflects the previous Congress:
55 Senators and 250 members of the House of Representatives signed the amicus brief supporting Heller.

A majority of the Senators wrote to the Secretary of the Interior asking for National Park carry.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 23, 2009, 03:40 PM
My question is if you figured out the number of pro-gun house members of either party would we have a majority?

Check out this analysis of the elections by Dave Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/posts/1225871855.shtml).

Short version: We lost 14 or 15 pro-gun votes in the House; but still hold a majority (though no chance of overturning a Presidential veto now). We lost 4 pro-gun votes in the Senate; but with Gillibrand we will actually pick up one. Either way, we have enough votes to filibuster in the Senate.

All in all, looks like we lack the votes to get any positive legislation passed for the next two years; but we are still in a decent position to block negative legislation. It also helps that unlike the House, the Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid D-NV) has come out against a renewal of the AWB. That is definitely an important point in our favor as long as he feels more heat from his constituents than he does from his anti-leaning colleagues.

January 23, 2009, 07:49 PM
Look at that, the NRA supported a Dem over a Republican... You would think that was impossible given some of the anti NRA rants of late.NRA is a non-partisan organization which has as its end purpose the furtherence of civilian marksmanship in America so as to maintain a populace which can serve in the military if needed. It was originally created by former US Army officers who had personally witnessed spectacular battlefield failures as the result of poor marksmanship training and lack of weapons familiarity among the troops.

I'd think more urban versus rural than Republican versus Democrat.

Buckshot Bill
January 23, 2009, 07:52 PM
Well, ANYTHING that gives that Mccarthy a belly ache is alright with me!

January 23, 2009, 09:00 PM
I'm almost shocked. A pro-gun Senator from NY who appears to be able to prioritize issues important to her constituents.

New Sen. Gillibrand Puts President Obama On Hold

After months of public and private dithering and a very public dis of Caroline Kennedy, New York Gov. David Paterson named Hudson County Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate.

Gillibrand, a relatively unknown, is 42 and the mother of two.

For all the dysfunction of the event the governor never mentioned Kennedy, nor took questions about her. There were some high points -- President Barack Obama called in the middle of Gillibrand's speech.

Gillibrand finished her remarks before she went to the side of the stage to take the call.

Gillibrand's pro-gun stance hung over the event, but she said she was willing to work with people against gun violence.

"I'm going to be an advocate for hunter's rights, but there is so much area where there is common ground, where I can work together with really solving the problem of gun violence," Gillibrand said.

When she takes office on Sunday she will be 99th in seniority in the Senate.

Here's where Gillibrand stands on some key issues: She supports same-sex marriage, abortion rights and withdrawing troops from Iraq, but is against providing drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.


January 23, 2009, 09:08 PM
Bill its a duplicate

WildjoininAlaska ™

Shane Tuttle
January 23, 2009, 09:16 PM
No matter. As a NY resident this is the best bit of news on the 2A I have seen related to this state in a long while!

Seeing that NY is one of the most abusive states on the 2A as well as other rights of the individual, I must say that this could be a huge step in swinging NY back to restoring your rights.

I must still be aprehensive, though. Just because she's been given a good grade by the NRA doesn't necessarily mean she won't give in to political pressure. You think she will stand her ground when we really need her, Musketeer?

January 23, 2009, 09:48 PM
That new Senator from Virginia, Webb, and the one from Montana are NRA 100%. All the WV house delegation are 100% I think. I'm sure they all got NRA money.

NRA has never been anti-democrat, just anti-gunbrabber.

El Paso Joe
January 23, 2009, 11:59 PM
She is my kind of Democrat. I am a shooter, gun owner, CCW, and advocate for 2A & RKBA. I am also a Democrat. The discussions with my fellow gun owners has gotten dicey but nowhere near the rancor of the discussions with my fellow Democrats. But that is how it is - what you see is what you get. That is why she is my kind of Democrat.

But the issue (and this is the point of this post) is not support of hunters (which you hear a lot in the press) but rather the right of the rank and file citizens to keep and bear arms. This is as important as the right of free speech and assembly. In my (not so) humble opinion, the NRA and ACLU need to open a dialog toward mutual goals - ie the preservation of ALL of our constitutional rights.

Bud Helms
January 24, 2009, 12:32 AM
Yes it is. I'll merge.

Dang! I screwed that up and had to move the original thread back here to L&CR.

January 24, 2009, 03:14 AM
and the one from Montana are NRA 100%
Both of our senators, John Tester and Max Baucus, democrats, both graded "A" by the NRA.

Montana's governor Schweitzer, democrat, also got an A from the NRA. He keeps a rifle in his office (and a dog.)

In Montana, being anti-gun means losing every election, no matter party affiliation.

January 24, 2009, 03:54 AM
The bottom line is gunowners ARE the majority in the US, and, from the ObamaMania gunsales, I would say by a huge margin. We have a Senate leader from Nevada, one of the most gun friendly states in the union, as long as you don't use one in a crime. What a novel idea.

I can accept that after being facist-democrats for a long time, they actually might look at the data, and, find that their facist position has not worked, and, might be willing to examine changing their mantra, in particular after loosing control thanks to GCL a couple elections back.

It would seem a politically unwise move to pass legislation that makes the majority of the people in the United States criminals....

Glenn E. Meyer
January 24, 2009, 05:20 PM
Socrates - a note from the rules of this forum:

The indiscriminate use of invectives such as Demon-crat or Repugnican, or otherwise twisting personal or group names, necessarily embodies negative emotional content.

Using 'facist' - BTW - spelling counts - is getting mighty close to the edge. As we know there a progun democrats and antigun republicans. There are actions that either party takes that one might describe as antithetical to freedom. Looking at data (here's comes Pax!) is not a strong point of most politicians. Let's discuss the issue itself and drop the invective.


January 24, 2009, 08:26 PM
Glenn sorry about the spelling. I use that term because it is exactly what occurs in this area. The original concept of 'liberal', and, in the true sense I am a liberal, is one that objectively and rationally looks at both sides of an issue, and comes to a reasoned response.

What exists in this area is a 'liberal' that has no tolerance for any thought but their own. They will not accept that another side might exist, and, they will attack your very ability to vocalize opposition to their position, while at the same time crying at the top of their lungs that they have the right to free speech, and you can't stop them from expressing their opinion in public.

They will drive you out of your position at work if you disagree with their party line. They will, if you, for example believe in the Second Amendment and actually discuss it cut your income by 75%, before getting rid of you entirely. Earlier in their lives, they may well have blown up your building, torched your car, or try and kill you.

I argue that this definition fits pretty much what the 'liberal' is here:
Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence.[1][2][3][4] ...[5] Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race.[6][7][8]

While it maybe somewhat inflamatory to put the two words together, it is none the less, describes perfectly the
focus and mentality, and methods of these so called 'liberals'.

I'm open to other ways of describing these folks...

Since this is a thread about the NRA, and the Second Amendment, I was trying to point out that the anti-gun position that is so common in 'liberals'
in Kali is not justified by facts, or rational thinking in Kali. It is not a reasoned argument, because the facts developed in my lifetime do not support
the concept that controlling guns leads to less crime, and less violence. The reverse is true, yet these people continue their anti-gun crusade.

It is, really, a class warfare tactic, rich against poor. And, that position is fueled by a somewhat justified fear of having their lives, and property taken away by poor people with guns, read the gangs that are only going to get stronger as the economy gets worse. The failure is in realizing that the only thing writing anti-gun laws does is make it impossible for law abiding citizens to have a chance to protect themselves. The very rich have their own, armed security, and essentially fortresses, and, they band together in times of crisis, read Rodney King riots.

I will say one more time that Nevada, with their enhancement of penalties if you use a gun in a crime, have, and use the right technique.
Making the majority of US citizens criminals by drachonian gun legislation is NOT a wise move.

maestro pistolero
January 24, 2009, 08:27 PM
It's interesting that McCarthy objects to the nomination saying essentially that Gillibrand is pro-gun violence, which is absurd.

Isn't it possible for pro 2A rights folks to be pro-active against gun violence?

Gillibrand seems to have struck a nice balance here. Wouldn't the NRA do well to propose, support and campaign for aggressive anti-violence measures that don't affect 2A rights?

It's disheartening sometimes the extent to which 2A opponents seem to be better able to seize the moral high ground, in terms of PR. We know gun control doesn't work, so let's work to reduce violence in other, smarter ways.

January 24, 2009, 08:37 PM
The NRA has already called for maximum sentences for violent offenders who used a gun but that is not reported in the media.

Huey Long
January 24, 2009, 09:04 PM
I will say one more time that Nevada, with their enhancement of penalties if you use a gun in a crime, have, and use the right technique.

I disagree. Murder is murder. Robbery is robbery. Rape is rape. It makes not one iota of difference if the weapon used is a gun, knife of club. In fact, murder committed with a knife or club may call for a harsher penalty than murder committed with a gun since the victim suffers more. I don't know about you, but if I'm to be murdered, I'd much prefer a clean, quick shot to the head than to be bludgeoned or hacked to death.

I do not support gun control, nor sentencing enhancements for crimes committed with guns.

January 24, 2009, 09:18 PM
Couple points. I'm listening to KSFO, and MY college, St. Mary's Moraga, is having Bill Ayers speak this Wednesday night, under the banner of free speech.

Folks from such wonderful terrorist groups retired, and, a LOT of them live in this area, or did at the time, and still live here.

Having also lived in the Berkeley area at the time, I can safely say that these groups are NOT 'liberal', and, my previous description should be more along the lines of Stalin.

Mr. Long:
The Nevada law that I've observed enhances legal penalty in the following ways.
If you are part of a group that conspires to commit a criminal act, ALL participants in the crime will be charged with the actions of the members who use guns, not sure about other weapons.

Also, they define kidnapping as almost any restraint in a confined area, by threat of force. In other words, if you use a gun to confine someone while you commit another crime, you are going to be charged with both robbery, and kidnapping. Then everyone in the group is going to be charged with using a weapon to commit the crime, in this case a gun, and both crimes as well.

I much prefer this method of law, rather then banning the private citizens ability to defend himself from armed felons.

maestro pistolero
January 24, 2009, 09:32 PM
What if I witness a crime and use a gun to hold the suspect for the police?

Huey Long
January 24, 2009, 09:43 PM
What if I witness a crime and use a gun to hold the suspect for the police?

Sounds like a citizens arrest to me. I'm sure that the kidnapping statutes make an exception for that.

January 24, 2009, 10:45 PM
Glenn, I know us users don't get a vote here, but if we did I'd vote with Socrates on this one; there appears to be more than a superficial similarity between "Progressive" and Fascist goals and methods. No need to cut and past from Wikipedia; here is a link to their description of the Fascist Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto) to use when you're making up your mind on this.

January 24, 2009, 10:52 PM
O well it was good whilst it lasted. Sorry meek, your analysis is off base and glens is on, guess this one will be gettin shut down shortly

WildihadsomanycoolpointsiwillneverhaveachancetoraisesobsobAlaska TM

January 24, 2009, 10:56 PM
Thanks MeekandMild.

I'm not calling 'liberals' anything, if they are truly liberal, the situation described does NOT apply to them.

I find the same blind dogma on the far right. A lack of any kind of willingness to discuss a position, regardless of it's questionability.

I find irrational belief in either party ludicrious at this point.
How anyone can find much difference in the actions on most issues is nearly impossible at this point.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 24, 2009, 10:59 PM
I'm sorry - my call was the use of unnecessary invective. As I said, both parties have extremes that fit the description. Discussing whether some conservatives or liberals are more fascist - are not the way, I think we want this to go.

We've discussed that the new NY Senator may be a positive for the RKBA and that party lines can be crossed - so to all a good night.