NRA/Why is it?


PDA






jefnvk
May 7, 2005, 11:31 PM
Why is it that Democrats seem to think that the NRA is simply a pro-Republican organization out to upset Democrats at any cost? Why is it hard for them to understand that the NRA endorses based on the candidates stance on guns and nothing else? Why is it that they think that Democrats who support gun rights won't get nominated?

Why can't they just understand that the ratings are based on gun rights, and if Democrats would change their stance, they'd get nominated as much as the Republicans?

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA/Why is it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ralphie98
May 8, 2005, 12:07 AM
sounds like you just had a fun conversation with an "ultra liberal" or read something on the 'net from one of them. :)

My guess is that it's because of all the NRA members/gun nuts who go on and on about liberal DUMB-o-crats... yadda, yadda, yadda (yep, I'm guilty of that). They are maybe associating what the members think of democrats with how the NRA actually works. :confused:

Sunray
May 8, 2005, 12:09 AM
Your Democrats are like our Liberals. They think that everything and everybody is out to get them. They both think that there's one law for them and one for everybody else too.
And we don't want Detroit. Your side got it back through the Treaty of Ghent and now you're stuck with it. We don't want Buffalo either.

Doctor Suarez
May 8, 2005, 12:18 AM
I'm mostly a Democrat, and I just joined the NRA!

It drives me crazy as well. My family is all GFW, and they don't know about my pursuits. When they talk about the NRA, they treat it like it was the Klan. They misunderstand the NRA's position, and they actually misunderstand the Democrats' position as well.

My dad says that the Democrats' party line on guns should be that "The only difference between us and the NRA is that we want to keep guns away from criminals, children, and the insane." It's a good line, but it's a total falsehood. The NRA engages in child-safety, supports background checks, and, if you'll remember, they endorsed Howard Dean for governor.

Meanwhile, the Dems are far more gun-grabby than that line suggests. And if you think they're bad nationally, come live in California some time.

What makes Democrats crazy is that they've taken their own gun-grabbiness as a given. And since the NRA is the most vocal, powerful opponent of this, they can't help but mistake them for pure Republicans. You must have spoken to someone from a Blue State. There are many Democrats who have their heads screwed on straight about guns, and the NRA makes nice with them.

It's the same kind of thinking that makes people upset when the Catholic Church picks a pope who fully believes in strict Catholicism. This organization has one job, and that's what it's going to do. It can't perform every duty and take a position on every issue. Asking the NRA to worry about a candidate's stance on abortion is like asking your TV to make you a cappucino.

Barbara
May 8, 2005, 12:35 AM
I hang out on an almost exclusively liberal board and they're generally supportive of the second amendment. You occasionally hear someone channeling Sarah Brady but not too often.

In my experience, the NRA goes out of their way to support Dems who are even minimally supportive of gun rights.

Standing Wolf
May 8, 2005, 12:53 AM
When they talk about the NRA, they treat it like it was the Klan.

New member Doctor Suarez just answered the question. Well said!

The Democratic (sic) party rants and raves and screams and shrills at the top of its lungs about everything. It's been on maximum indignation and volume since the 1960s.

America has done quite a bit of growing up since then. We've grown a bit bored with temper tantrums and little boys crying wolf five times a day and the race card being played every time some self-important nitwit gets up on the wrong side of the bed. The sky isn't falling. Everything isn't a dastardly plot. The nation has more important matters on its mind than free abortions and wedding rings for homosexuals.

Asking the NRA to worry about a candidate's stance on abortion is like asking your TV to make you a cappucino.

Bite your tongue! If Bill Gates hears about that, he'll detail a whole team of Microsoft senior product managers to make that happen—with a Windows user interface, of course.

jefnvk
May 8, 2005, 12:54 AM
sounds like you just had a fun conversation with an "ultra liberal" or read something on the 'net from one of them.

Actually, just got off DU.

I am partly suprised, because most of them on that board are no different than us here on THR. There was a thread on if we could repeal the NFA, making MG's the same as any other weapon, would they. The majority response was a 'yes, but we'd start with a repeal of the 86 MG ban'. Then they turn around and talk about the NRA like it is some Republican demon bent on destroying Democrats.

I just can't understand the logic. It would be like me saying that the Brady Bunch is simply out to kill Republicans, they are just a lobbying arm of the Democrats. I know that is not true, that they will support anti-gun Republicans, and not support pro-gun Democrats.

Asking the NRA to worry about a candidate's stance on abortion is like asking your TV to make you a cappucino.

Wow, I thought TV's were pretty much useless, but if that were to happen, I'd know for sure :neener: (not a coffee person). Good analogy, though.

ReadyontheRight
May 8, 2005, 01:10 AM
ONE extreme Dem position is that, outside the Military, only Police should be allowed to own guns.

I often wonder...for those who embrace this ridiculous position (A/K/A A lot of blue staters and Europeans) -- who do they expect to train the Police in firearms safety and proficiency?

http://www.nrahq.org/law/index.asp

GT
May 8, 2005, 01:14 AM
Nice arguments, but missing the point. Here is the point:

Professional anti-gun folks are Socialists

Most Democrats are Socialists (and worse)

Most Republicans are not Socialists

NRA is pro gun therefore anti-Socialist.

NRA is therefore anti-Democrat in most cases and pro-Republican in most cases.


The Second Amendment isn't simply an opportunity for Socialists to consider the nuances and probe the penumbra; it is the one right that guarantees all the others.

Socialists do not believe in rights for "citizens"


Nice to hear about all the merry Democrats (sic) who purport to be gung-ho weapons fans, but I am afraid the empirical evidence says otherwise.


G

TonkinTwentyMil
May 8, 2005, 01:16 AM
Maybe because EVERY recent -- and proposed/new -- piece of Gun Control legislation (no matter how insipid... and driven by emotional appeals to ballistic-illiterates) is authored by DEMOCRATS.

Sure, some "liberals" own guns and champion firearms rights, but THEY are a demographic rarity. I salute those rare birds, but I also challenge them to "come out of the closet" with their fellow liberal-Democrats... and ask them all to place Second Amendment rights (for Sporting Purposes AND Self-Defense AND Resistance to Tyranny/Abuse of Power) on equal footing with the REST of the Bill of Rights. There's often a price one pays for such outspoken political candor, and it takes a real measure of courage to do so -- in front of friends, fellow employees, bosses, and social acquaintances. I know. I've "seen that movie" -- and so have many boldly pro-2A conservatives and Republicans -- and we have the scars to prove it.

The undeniable fact is -- Gun Control (and, now, "ammo control") is 99% the exclusive domain of Blue-state urban liberal politicians seeking to assuage their ballistically-clueless liberal/pacifist constituents. The other 1% is comprised of gutless RINO-pols seeking to keep their jobs by fuzzy appeals to variants of the same (above) clueless voter constituency.

National Dem chairman Howard Dean thinks he can fake-out some uninformed, easily-swayed Red-state "moderates" with his disingenuous "gun control is no longer an issue" announcement. If that's the case, how come it's Dem-pols who are behind the current disarmament moves in California and Illinois (just two examples)? Does anyone have ANY doubt that, if those legislative moves succeed, we'll see MORE Dem-pols pushing that same anti-2A fiction in other states... and on a national level?

If it quacks like a duck -- it is.

ReadyontheRight
May 8, 2005, 01:25 AM
How easy is it to "Keep and Bear Arms" in Democratically-controlled New York, Boston, Washington D.C., Chicago, California?

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

Dems are just playing an RKBA waiting game. (It's not moving right now...but is that a CAMEL over in the corner of the tent?)

Gabby Hayes
May 8, 2005, 01:31 AM
... Democrats ... think ... Ah, now I'm beginning to see where you're going wrong.

TonkinTwentyMil
May 8, 2005, 01:33 AM
ReadyontheRight, you are dead-bang correct.

That IS a camel over there in the corner of the tent. However, since Dr. Howard Dean put lipstick on it, he's hoping we won't notice the Big-Ugly behind that, ummm... pretty face.

Its smell still gives it away.

Barbara
May 8, 2005, 07:43 AM
Actually so many of them hate GWB, they're starting to understand what the 2nd Amendment is really for. It's kind of cute but I'm not really scared of Revolution yet. :)

BTW..aren't the Bradys Republicans?

(I've voted for two Dems in past 8 years, with the balance being Reps or Libertarians. I'm not not a Democrat. But I think this is much more an urban vs. rural issue than a political party issue, based on the Republicans and Democrats I know.)

greyhound
May 8, 2005, 10:43 AM
seems to me the new Democrat strategy is to trot out the "we don't want to take guns away from hunters and sportsmen" line.

Now, I think that's a losing tactic: how many guns owners hunt? 10%?

Let's not forget John "brand new camo" Kerry refusing to carry his own duck out of the field. I can see the stragegy session now: "We need to appeal to the hunters without ticking off the animal rights crowd".

Heck, I might even vote for a moderate Democrat who stood up for RKBA. We have a few of those down South. (note that's a "might"). :)

jefnvk
May 8, 2005, 11:35 AM
BTW..aren't the Bradys Republicans?

Yep, that is why I think my example above stands out good.

I understand that most anti-gun stuff comes from Democrats. And that is why many Democrats will never get supported by the NRA, because they don't support gun rights. I guess I just can't see why they can't understand that the NRA picks candidates solely on their stance on guns. They complain that because the candidate may be good on guns, that they are against Social Security, pro war, anti poor people, pro big business or whatever else, that the NRA shouldn't endorse them. Why can't they understand that the NRA stands for National RIFLE Association, they don't care what other stances their candidates take as long as they are pro-gun.

shermacman
May 8, 2005, 12:07 PM
Doctor Suarez
Not a bad first post, sir!
Welcome aboard!

Rebar
May 8, 2005, 12:24 PM
BTW..aren't the Bradys Republicans?
Jim Brady was a republican, until he got shot in the head.

The simple fact is, the liberal/left has plans for us, that they know we're not going to like. To impliment these plans, they'll have to disarm us first. The NRA thwarts that plan, so they demonize it.

one45auto
May 8, 2005, 03:11 PM
Actually, just got off DU.

Hope you took a shower afterwards and washed your hands. :uhoh:

Doctor Suarez
May 8, 2005, 03:44 PM
Why thank you , Shermacman!

I think the comment about how the issue is urban vs. rural is an excellent one. The nature of cities, which are packed with people who, for one reason or another, are dependent on government services and programs, is what makes them so liberal. Thus, they breed mayors who can best be described as Socialist Dictators. (The exception to that being LA, where they're socialists, but they have almost no power.)

After all, Giuliani and Bloomberg are technically Republicans, but they're some of the biggest gun bigots on Earth. (Giuliani has some GOP cred, but Bloomberg is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who took on the name "Republican" to ride Rudy's coattails.)

To expand my earlier thought:

Poor people in cities need government dole programs, etc, and are thus prone to voting Democrat. Rich people in cities, meanwhile, see every manner of urban problem, from crime to potholes, and, being in a city, expect some manner of government to deal with them. They also see the poorest of the poor in relatively close proximity, and are often driven to wealth redistribution.

The same thinking that government is supposed to take care of these little things permeates their political thinking to the point where government is also supposed to solve all major problems. Meanwhile, rural Americans live without the benefit of massive, corrupt civic agencies, and know that they're going to have to solve their various pecadillos themselves.

Thus, in relation to guns, the exact same pattern of thought emerges. Urban liberals want government to stop the bad men and protect them. And since they aren't taking responsibility for protecting themselves any more than for filling a pothole, they don't want a gun. They only see drug-war related gun crime, and guns are evil.

Rural Americans, meanwhile, know that stopping the bad men and protecting one's self is nobody's job but their own. And they need the tools to do it.

TonkinTwentyMil
May 8, 2005, 05:20 PM
Jim Brady served in a Republican administration -- as President Reagan's Press Secretary. That means he had a background in journalism -- a profession that's never been a wellspring of pro-gun, ballistically-knowledgeable, conservative sentiment (see ".380 gauge semi-automatic assault revolver" story-thread as the latest/typical example).

He may have been -- or become -- a registered Republican to qualify for this job. I don't know his pre-Reagan political background. However, I DO know, based on personal experience, that it's not unusual for career federal executives to demonstrate their "political synchronicity" by re-aligning their political loyalties (i.e., party affiliation) to get/keep their jobs and enhance promotability -- just another Potomac political game.

I seriously doubt his wife, Sarah, was ever a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. She lives in New Jersey, a state that regularly elects such gun-hostile luminaries as senators Lautenberg and Corzine... a state that prohibits civilian possession of hollow-point ammo... a state where I have an assistant D.A/cousin who thinks ALL semi-automatic guns are "assault weapons." I don't recall Sarah Brady ever appearing on the stage on behalf of any GOP political candidate -- as she has with the Clintons, Rosie O'Donnell, and the gun-grabbing, emotionally over-wrought N.Y. congresswoman, Carolyn McCarthy.

While I regret Jim Brady's horribly unfortunate fate, the Brady's are probably RINOs, at best.

rwc
May 8, 2005, 05:40 PM
Meanwhile, rural Americans live without the benefit of massive, corrupt civic agencies, and know that they're going to have to solve their various pecadillos themselves.

Hmm. You must live in a part of rural America without crop supports, without subsidized irrigation water, without subsidized electricty to pump the "welfare water", and without subsidized telephone service.

Oh, and unlike the rest of rural America, you must voluntarily pay about 120-150% of your assessed state taxes since (unlike the rest of rural America), you actually want to pay the cost of the highways and roads that serve your community.

I'm sorry if the above is somewhat pointed, but every time someone living in a rural community gets self-rightious about how they're great and the urban cesspools suck off the government teat I feel it is incumbant upon me to point out that on a per capita basis rural residents live a far more subsidized existance than your average urban resident. Most of whom, BTW hava a job, pay their taxes, live right, and respect the law.

And yes, I am a Democrat who enjoys his second amendement rights and will defend them.

Doctor Suarez
May 8, 2005, 06:06 PM
Actually, I'm from the cities. I wasn't thinking of actual farmers so much as simply Americans who don't live in a dense, urban center.

Everyone gets screwed to a degree, but urbanites see government as a welcome, neccessary organization, while many people outside cities see it as a parasite.

Just perceptions, not realities.

jefnvk
May 8, 2005, 10:21 PM
The simple fact is, the liberal/left has plans for us, that they know we're not going to like. To impliment these plans, they'll have to disarm us first. The NRA thwarts that plan, so they demonize it.

Probably, in the long run, that is the correct answer.

As far as rural v. urban, I think most rural folks aren't touched by as much direct government involvement. Sure, they get government supported roads. Do they get government supported water? Do they have government built parks in every neighborhood? Are there city ordanances requiring lawns to be kept to a certain standard, and telling you where you can park your car on your property? I think the line is too often simply put at in-city-limits v. outside-city-limits, which I don't agree with. To me, the dividing line between rural and urban, is that rural people could support themselves better if civilization were to collapse.

I had the opportunity to meet in the UP some real rural folk. Not the ones that simply live outside the city limits. Electricity comes from generators, when needed, they grow as much as possible to save on food costs, thir driveway is half a mile long, after a half hour drive to the middle of nowhere, house is a log cabin heated by a wood stove, again to save money. Wood is free, gas/electric heating isn't. If the United States went into a nuclear war with China on a friday afternoon, they probably wouldn't know it until they went to work on Monday. They always pay their taxes, and don't expect an ounce of support from anyone, especially the gov't.

The example doesn't have to be quite that extreme. But I don't consider the millionaire that moves to the country as a rural person, anymore than the old farmer who finds his farm encompassed in an expanding city as a city folk.

Kim
May 8, 2005, 11:41 PM
My momma told me something many years ago that has stuck in my brain. This from a poor family in a rural area who would never accept wefare -----period. She said that SOME rich people act like they feel sorry for and are concerned about poor people ,espically those in cities but, what they really mean is they are afraid. Welfare she said is a code word for a cheap police force to keep the poor people just satisfied enough so(they won't steal them blind) they feel safe and really don't have to deal with the real world. Plus it makes them FEEL good like they have done something grand.(this is a self rationalization of the wrong they Know they are inflicting). The problem is those who buy into the welfare scam(plantation) are no better really than a slave. They have to sell their character and beliefs for a welfare check.(Sounds like Howard Dean to me) Needless to say my mother and father put four children and one momma through college without welfare and we are all better off because of it.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
May 9, 2005, 12:14 AM
When they talk about the NRA, they treat it like it was the Klan.

When they talk about the gun industry, they describe it as all-powerful, a behemoth with politicians its beck and call. Which is laughable when you consider that the entire US gun industry probably had gross income that was around 1/4 of Taco Bell's last year.

Quiero KGP-161...er...Taco Bell.

benEzra
May 9, 2005, 12:23 AM
Now, I think that's a losing tactic: how many guns owners hunt? 10%?
20% is the number I've seen. 13 to 16 million licensed hunters out of 65 to 80 million gun owners. Which still means that four out of five of us don't hunt, and of those that do hunt, many probably own nonhunting guns as well. Which is why the "talk-up-hunting-while-demonizing-nonhunting-guns" strategy Gore used in 2000, and Kerry in 2004, backfired so badly.

jefnvk
May 9, 2005, 01:29 AM
Don't forget that many hunters are strictly archery. I've met many more archery-only hunters than I would have thought existed

GT
May 9, 2005, 02:01 AM
Kim, you are right on the money!

G

Gordon Fink
May 9, 2005, 01:13 PM
Well, during the last major election, the two leading candidates both supported firearm prohibitions, disagreeing merely on which guns should be banned. Rather than endorsing no one or choosing a pro-RKBA third-party candidate, the NRA endorsed the Republican.

More often than not, the NRA favors Republican candidates, even when that support is unwarranted.

~G. Fink, NRA member

greyhound
May 9, 2005, 03:22 PM
Rather than endorsing no one or choosing a pro-RKBA third-party candidate, the NRA endorsed the Republican.


personally, I don't think we are ever again going to see a Democrat OR Republican candidate for President come out squarely in favor of the 2A. Oh, they'll say they are, but it will be obvious they are playing both sides of the fence.

Unfortunately, I think the reality is that Bush is about the best we can hope for in a Republican, and much better than any Democrat who actually hopes to get nominated.

Locally, of course, its much different - many Democrats can be 2A supporters in many areas of the country, I think.

Igloodude
May 9, 2005, 04:14 PM
The NRA certainly doesn't adhere strictly to RKBA, they combine RKBA and a generally pro-Republican sentiment. And while it is understandable when considering Rep vs Dem races, it is baffling when considering Libertarian candidates. There's no such thing as a LINO and there is no Libertarian that will see the 2A as anything except recognition of an individual absolute right to keep and bear arms. One would think that the NRA would adore such candidates, but they don't even list them.

Rebar
May 9, 2005, 04:21 PM
I think the fact that no libertarian candidate has had a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning was and is a factor for the NRA.

That's not the NRA's fault, it's the incompetence of the libertarian party in running a viable candidate/campaign. I've pretty much written off the national libertarian party as completely incompetent and clueless. A party that cannot even get someone into the House, has no business running a Presidential candidate.

Gordon Fink
May 9, 2005, 04:27 PM
I wonder if an NRA endorsement might possibly change the fortunes of a Libertarian candidate. Fulfilling your own prophecies certainly won’t.

~G. Fink

HankB
May 9, 2005, 04:45 PM
Why is it that Democrats seem to think that the NRA is simply a pro-Republican organization out to upset Democrats at any cost? The NRA refused to endorse Bush 41 when he was running for re-election. His anti-gun actions cost him that support. If a solidly pro-gun Democrat had been running, he certainly would have gotten the NRA's endorsement.

If Democrats want NRA support, all they have to do is stop supporting anti-gun legislation.

Duh.

Rebar
May 9, 2005, 05:57 PM
I wonder if an NRA endorsement might possibly change the fortunes of a Libertarian candidate. Fulfilling your own prophecies certainly won’t.
Nonsense.

No libertarian candidate has gotten more than 3% of the vote, I don't care who endorses you, you're not going to win with numbers that low. If and when they run a real, viable, and electable candidate, then you might have a point. Until then (and I'm not holding my breath for it), I don't see any reason whatsoever for the NRA to endorse losers, who, at best, take votes away from the less-bad candidate.

Gordon Fink
May 9, 2005, 07:51 PM
And yet the NRA does “endorse losers” whenever it picks a Republican who has no chance to defeat a Democratic incumbent.…

~G. Fink

ZeroX
May 9, 2005, 08:09 PM
Actually so many of them hate GWB, they're starting to understand what the 2nd Amendment is really for. It's kind of cute but I'm not really scared of Revolution yet.

Heh, the day after the '04 election, I was standing with some friends (all but one liberal) in the high school commons and a guy (friend of a friend) comes up and starts ranting how it's time to take to the streets with AK-47s and revolt (he had to have been like 5'2"). My conservative friend and I had a fine laugh.

Rebar
May 9, 2005, 08:31 PM
And yet the NRA does “endorse losers” whenever it picks a Republican who has no chance to defeat a Democratic incumbent.…
A republican at least has a theoretical chance at winning. A libertarian doesn't.

Look, if the libertarians were a serious party, they'd be electing governers, congressmen and senators, or at least getting significant numbers into state legislative seats.

Over 30 years later, what do they have to show it? Answer - hardly anything. Hell, even the Socialists have someone in congress (Bernie Sanders)! They can barely get a few people into city councel seats.

They waste their time, money, and effort every four years running some nobody for President, who doesn't have any chance whatsoever. It's foolish tilting at windmills, and you cannot expect a serious organization like the NRA to waste time or money on foolishness.

jefnvk
May 9, 2005, 08:48 PM
Look, if the libertarians were a serious party, they'd be electing governers, congressmen and senators, or at least getting significant numbers into state legislative seats.

I completely agree with that statement. I do think the libretarians would be better off getting people into lesser contested seats. I think they wouldn't have much of a problem getting into some of the lesser populated House of Representitive districts. Run some more govenor elections. Run a lot more state congress election campaigns.

I simply see a lot less money required to get a congressperson elected than a president. How many good congress campaigns could support, where they actually have a shot at winning, with the money they put up for a lousy Presidential campaign?

Barbara
May 9, 2005, 09:32 PM
NRA Endorsements are purely given for political favor. I got a chance to study this in depth a lot this year while doing our own and once you start comparing records and ratings, you find sometimes there isn't much of a correlation. I've seen really bad records get a B and pro-gunners get a C..It's bad, buts its the way it is, and sometimes you get a vote by promising an endorsement..

There was also one case where someone got an "F" and we could find nothing at all to justify it..so while the endorsements/ratings are a good resource, follow up on your own, too.

Rebar
May 10, 2005, 02:49 AM
I completely agree with that statement.
It drives me nuts that a couple of "Joe Shmoes" on the internet have a better grasp of politics then the supposed professional libertarian operatives. Either something fishy is going on, or they're redefining the word "incompetent".
NRA Endorsements are purely given for political favor.
The NRA has a mission, and of course it has to play the political game to further that mission. So that doesn't suprise me much.

jefnvk
May 10, 2005, 11:34 AM
NRA Endorsements are purely given for political favor. I got a chance to study this in depth a lot this year while doing our own and once you start comparing records and ratings, you find sometimes there isn't much of a correlation. I've seen really bad records get a B and pro-gunners get a C..It's bad, buts its the way it is, and sometimes you get a vote by promising an endorsement..

If that is true, I could change my opinion a bit. Was that study published anywhere?

But still, they aren't going to go as far as giving a strictly anti-gun Dem an endorsement over a staunchly pro-gun Republican simply because the Dem is pro-abortion, anti-Soc Sec reform, and everythign else that a good Dem is supposed to be. Which is what I think most of them have a problem with.

Gung-Ho
May 10, 2005, 12:28 PM
I'm mostly a Democrat

Isn't that like being a little bit pregnant? ;)

Igloodude
May 10, 2005, 12:30 PM
A republican at least has a theoretical chance at winning. A libertarian doesn't.

In Massachusetts in 2000, Carla Howell (L) was running against Ted Kennedy (D) and Jack Robinson (sorta R). The state GOP refused to endorse Robinson because of DUI and sexual assault charges, and wouldn't endorse Howell because of her libertarian position on the War on Drugs.

Ted Kennedy got 75%, and Howell and Robinson split the remainder nearly evenly. As I recall (and ordinarily I don't remember things this detailed but this had me quite upset), the NRA didn't endorse anyone in that race, Jack Robinson not having returned his NRA questionnaire, and their voting guide didn't even list Howell. Surely it wouldn't take too much of the NRA's time, money, and effort to list her on the voting guide?

Look, if the libertarians were a serious party, they'd be electing governers, congressmen and senators, or at least getting significant numbers into state legislative seats.

Over 30 years later, what do they have to show it? Answer - hardly anything. Hell, even the Socialists have someone in congress (Bernie Sanders)! They can barely get a few people into city councel seats.

They waste their time, money, and effort every four years running some nobody for President, who doesn't have any chance whatsoever. It's foolish tilting at windmills, and you cannot expect a serious organization like the NRA to waste time or money on foolishness.

Regarding the presidential candidates, I agree with you. As to the rest, I understand why the NRA would prefer that the Libertarian Party stay off the political scope for practical reasons, but the deliberate ignoring of an extremely pro-2A party no matter their electoral expertise is exasperating.

Gordon Fink
May 10, 2005, 07:42 PM
Don’t worry, Rebar. When all is said and done, the Democrats and Republicans will still let you keep your small-bore target rifles and fowling pieces.

~G. Fink

GoRon
May 10, 2005, 08:55 PM
While the libertarians live life in the "ideasphere" the rest of us will trudge along in reality. :neener:

Rebar
May 11, 2005, 12:26 AM
When all is said and done, the Democrats and Republicans will still let you keep your small-bore target rifles and fowling pieces.
Typical liberal "magical thinking".

While the republicans aren't doing much to repeal anti-gun legislation, they are hardly the same as the democrats, who have made stripping our 2nd Amendment rights away a top priority.

Hate the republicans all you want, but to say that they're the same as the democrats on the RKBA, is utterly absurd.

Gung-Ho
May 11, 2005, 12:33 AM
Hate the republicans all you want, but to say that they're the same as the democrats on the RKBA, is utterly absurd.

6 of one, half dozen of the other. In other words, the Dems hit you over the head, drag you into a back alley and have their way with you. Whereas the Reps drug you, and while you are out of it, whisper how much you are going to like it in your ear. The results are the same. For the most part you lose your constitutional rights under the Republicans just like under the Democrats....just a little slower. So what difference does it make in the long run?

crewsr
May 11, 2005, 12:42 AM
Your first Post in this thread is dead on....everything else is just wind up my....

Rebar
May 11, 2005, 12:45 AM
So what difference does it make in the long run?
This does not apply to RKBA. In this area, the democrats are clearly on the wrong side, the republicans are clearly not.

Imagine if you can, if Gore won, or if Kerry won. For sure the AWB would have been extended permanently, with stricter guidelines too. National registration wouldn't be far behind, more activist liberal judges would be nominated and seated. We'd be well on the road to a UK/Australian confiscation nightmare, if the democrats had their way.

So stop already with the rediculous statements that the democrats and republicans are "the same" already. The liberal/left wants your guns, the republicans do not. Big difference.

Gung-Ho
May 11, 2005, 12:59 AM
The liberal/left wants your guns, the republicans do not.

Lets see.....A Republican governor just became the first ever to ban an entire class of firearms just because of the size of the hole in the end of the barrel. So what if the Republicans let the AWB expire. If they were truly a friend of the RKBA, they would be doing a LOT more than that while they had power. When was the last time you heard a Republican campaign on the RKBA issue? Face it, gun owners are an embarrassing pain in the rear end for MOST Republicans...they wish we would just go away.

Rebar
May 11, 2005, 01:10 AM
You can't pull something one RINO does, and paint the whole party with it.

AS A WHOLE - the republicans are far, far better than the democrats AS A WHOLE on the RKBA issue. This is indisputable.

Chrontius
May 11, 2005, 04:06 AM
Actually so many of them hate GWB, they're starting to understand what the 2nd Amendment is really for. It's kind of cute but I'm not really scared of Revolution yet.

Wait until the digital TV changeover next year when basically every TV set more than a few years old or smaller than 3' stops working. Then you'll have your revolution ^_^

Gung-Ho
May 11, 2005, 12:43 PM
This is indisputable.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

cookekdjr
May 11, 2005, 12:52 PM
Why is it that Democrats seem to think that the NRA is simply a pro-Republican organization out to upset Democrats at any cost? Why is it hard for them to understand that the NRA endorses based on the candidates stance on guns and nothing else? Why is it that they think that Democrats who support gun rights won't get nominated?

Why can't they just understand that the ratings are based on gun rights, and if Democrats would change their stance, they'd get nominated as much as the Republicans?

Why? Go ask former Georgia Congressman Buddy Dardin, a Democrat.
Buddy was very pro-gun, did everything the NRA asked him to, then the NRA stabbed him in the back and backed Republican Bob Barr.
Barr won a narrow victory with the NRA's help.
The NRA does not give a D--- about you if you are a Democratic candidate.
Some consultant probably told them to only back Republicans and so they did it. I watched the results in action.
-David

jefnvk
May 11, 2005, 02:39 PM
Wait until the digital TV changeover next year when basically every TV set more than a few years old or smaller than 3' stops working.

Huh?

I guess what I am seeing now, is that there is a bit of political favoring going on, unfortunately.

But I still don't quite buy into their claims. Last year's US House race for Michigan, 2 of the races had a Democrat ranked higher than the Republican, 4 had the Republican higher, and two were tied. Hardly an unbiased support for Republicans. All the rest had one or more candidates ranked as '?'. Furthermore, the Dems had the only A+ rated candidate.

crucible
May 11, 2005, 03:22 PM
To answer the original question: the Democrats have purposely allowed the leberal left to take the lead within thier party. Accordingly, since the liberal left in power hates the fact that people disagree politically with them have the power to keep that disagreement at arm's length via the power that firearms give the citizen, they have made gun control, and all it's ugly anti 2nd amendment elements, to be a hallmark of thier party.

To which the NRA is an organization made up of people who vehemently disagree, and who's purpose is to ensure the 2nd amendment and it's freedoms survives. Many, perhaps most, of the members of the NRA are not Democrats for that reason.

The NRA-along with other pro-gun freedom groups-has stood in the way of the Democrats by-in-large for this reason, and have thwarted them time and again, and addition to educating and organizing the populace who care aout such issues, but otherwise wouldn't care enough to do anything about it. In recent years, that issue, have cost the liberal Democrats bigtime-largely because of the members of groups such as the NRA, and the NRA itself.

Of course the liberal Democrats hate the NRA and demonize it's members-they are, among others, the personification of their inability to gain total and complete power-which can't be gotten if the citizenry have the power to resist themselves.

Sucks to be them.

While the pendulum is swinging a bit in the other direction within the Dems (look at Hillary-she's talking of things she herself would have villified a Republican for only a few years ago), I doubt the Democrats will smarten up that much and take back thier party from the radical left.

Doctor Suarez
May 11, 2005, 04:18 PM
Having once been a blindly pro-gun-control Democrat, I can tell you that, at least as far as we rank-and-file peons were concerned, gun control was never about clearing the way for our "agenda".

Statist Liberalism is fundamentally cursed by its inability to trust people to make decisions, and to differentiate among types of citizens. Liberals refuse to believe that there is a criminal class, and yet there is so much crime. Confronting criminality along its true demographics would place liberals in the position of being "racists", so they have to confront other aspects of crime that are not protected classes of people. This, coupled with the liberals' classic disregard for human agency, creates a situation in which it is simply easier to target the means of crime, rather than the tough, un-PC human factors such as parenting and culture.

We city folk are used to expecting the mayor's office to solve everything that plagues us. Urban individuals, as shown in numerous sociological studies and incidents, display a shocking lack of responsibility to the problems around them. Remember Kitty Genovese? Have you ever seen those experiments where they place a fake stricken man on the sidewalk? Rural Americans pounce on him to offer aid, while New Yorkers stroll right past him for HOURS.

This diffusion of responsibility, naturally, bleeds into the arena of self defense. Individuals believe society is responsible, since society takes care of every other essential function. Thus, someone who wishes to take responsibility themselves is seen as anti-social. Also, when people see privately owned guns, they are painfully reminded that such objects are needed, and therefore, that the dangers really exist. This is uncomfortable, and the mind does amazing things to reduce that discomfort.

And keep one thing in mind: Since 1968, the populist, fair-shake-for-the-working-man Democratic Party Leadership has been extinct, replaced by the leaders of the Peace Movement. Pacifists are known for their total inability to differentiate between predatory and protective violence. When all violence is evil, then all means of violence are evil as well.

Just one former gun bigot's opinion...

Barbara
May 11, 2005, 08:54 PM
But I still don't quite buy into their claims. Last year's US House race for Michigan, 2 of the races had a Democrat ranked higher than the Republican, 4 had the Republican higher, and two were tied. Hardly an unbiased support for Republicans. All the rest had one or more candidates ranked as '?'. Furthermore, the Dems had the only A+ rated candidate.


That House race was one of the times I voted Dem over Joe Schwarz..She was an Ann Arbor liberal with a carry permit and he was a gun-nabbing butthead whose very presence makes me itch. The NRA gave her a good rating and Nugent endorsed her, too, for what that's worth. At one of the SAFR meetings they attended, Schwarz got literally booed out of the room and she got two standing ovations. Didn't expect to see that, for sure.

Schwarz won, though.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA/Why is it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!