NRA to expand lobbying to other conservative causes


PDA






Hypnogator
April 8, 2012, 09:30 AM
Saw a banner on CNN this morning, that the NRA is expanding their lobbying effort to embrace other conservative causes.

I, for one, question this decision. The left/Democrats are already characterizing the NRA as a branch of the Republican party. I'm not sure we won't reduce our effectiveness at lobbying for pro-2nd Amendment legislation by embracing other conservative causes and alienating some of the pro-gun Democrats that support us now. :scrutiny:

Let's try to stick to the issue, and not devolve into an NRA-bashing thread! :uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA to expand lobbying to other conservative causes" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Furncliff
April 8, 2012, 09:38 AM
Whoever is making the decisions at NRA has just made that characterization a bald faced fact.

357 Terms
April 8, 2012, 09:44 AM
It would seem that the powers that be at the NRA are now branching out to push their own interests/agenda.
Can't be good.

Nushif
April 8, 2012, 09:45 AM
While a banner on an editorial channel is hardly a credible source, and as such I will suspend judgement on this, but yeah. I can't say I would be terribly surprised if it proved true.

Prince Yamato
April 8, 2012, 09:56 AM
So, will donors' money go to things other than a pro-gun agenda? Will members be able to control where their money goes and to what causes? I think that's a really bad move on the part of the NRA. Stick to one issue.

jj1962hemi
April 8, 2012, 09:56 AM
I think this looks to be overblown. They cite that Tara Mica (NRA-ILA lobbyist) is on the board of ALEC, a conservative organization that the NRA has given "major support" toward...., they think $25,000 in 2010. Ms. Mica, as a board member of a different organization than the NRA, voted to support ALEC's efforts to demand voter registration.

The other citing is a push against McCain Feingold, saying this has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment....which is only correct if one takes the view that the NRA should allow Congress to kill its sources of funding, and that securing the right to anonymously support the NRA, for many of us to whom confidentiality matters, is not a 2A issue.

They also cite a professor who says "the downward trend" in gun ownership in America is a cause for alarm for the NRA. Whaaaa?

Lastly, the cite the NRA's targeting Democrats in weak districts as openly supporting the Republican party...also nonsense! The NRA, against many of its member's wishes, has supported Harry Reid many times because he has a decent 2A voting record. Unfortunately, most Democrats are anti-private gun ownership. I've not seen the NRA, in my 25+ years of membership, pull support for pro-gun candidates, regardless of party affiliation. CNN strikes again!

Tim the student
April 8, 2012, 09:58 AM
I looked briefly at CNN's site, but I didn't see anything. Does anyone have a link?

Not good if true, IMO.

alsaqr
April 8, 2012, 10:01 AM
So, will donors' money go to things other than a pro-gun agenda? Will members be able to control where their money goes and to what causes? I think that's a really bad move on the part of the NRA. Stick to one issue.

+1
Been an NRA member for over 50 years. i saw this one coming a few years ago. It's not good for gunowners. i stopped contributing to the ILA a few years ago because of their misinformation, distortion of the facts and dabbling in conspiracy theories.

jj1962hemi
April 8, 2012, 10:04 AM
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-06/politics/politics_nra-alec_1_nra-officials-alec-gun-rights?_s=PM:POLITICS


Here are two that I read. I think they are overstating the case here. Maybe it's too close to the "enemies-of-our-enemies-are-our-friends" type thinking, but it seems a stretch.

Nushif
April 8, 2012, 10:06 AM
So, will donors' money go to things other than a pro-gun agenda? Will members be able to control where their money goes and to what causes?

Arguably the biggest sticking point. But again, a ticker on an editorial isn't a good source.

Yo Mama
April 8, 2012, 10:11 AM
OMG, not Conservative values!!! The sky is falling!!!

Glad if they are supporting Conservative values. The more good they can do the better.

ApacheCoTodd
April 8, 2012, 10:35 AM
From where I'm sittin' - Just the NRA looking to expand it's revenue garnering base.

Either that or they've already accomplished everything which can possibly be done in the area of protection of or reestablishment (in the case of states like California) Second Amendment rights and have boatloads of resources to throw at catch-all "conservative" issues.

Yeah, that's it... protection of gun owner's rights is a Fait Accompli so now they can dominate and alter agendas elsewhere.:banghead:

Sav .250
April 8, 2012, 10:36 AM
If that is true, it stands to reason their over all budget for such things will
have to be increased. Expect the "request for money" to increase sharply.

Carl N. Brown
April 8, 2012, 10:43 AM
...a banner on CNN this morning...

For now, I am with jj1962hemi: this is overblown, until or unless a credible source gives more than a text crawl on a TV screen.

50 cal
April 8, 2012, 11:08 AM
If this is true, then they will definitly get my support. If the pro-gun dems don't like it, too bad. Just think about all the non NRA conservatives that will finally get on board with us.

WvHiker
April 8, 2012, 11:14 AM
You should also consider pro gun democrats leaving the NRA. You guys all assume since most antis are democrats that all antis are democrats which is not the case.

alsaqr
April 8, 2012, 11:14 AM
i could care less that the pro-gun candidate is a fire breathing Protestant preacher or a lesbian Wiccan. The pro-gunner will get my vote every time.

WinThePennant
April 8, 2012, 11:18 AM
I have voted Democrat many times.

I am a lifetime member of the NRA.

dragon813gt
April 8, 2012, 11:23 AM
The only reason I'm a member now is because it's a requirement for the range I belong to. They already do to many things I don't like. Stick to one thing. I hate the whole conservative vs liberal debate to begin with. They are all the same lying politicians. And if this really is the case and they start to support any type of religious organization/cause I will be looking for another range to join.


Brought to you by TapaTalk.

Yo Mama
April 8, 2012, 11:25 AM
You should also consider pro gun democrats leaving the NRA. You guys all assume since most antis are democrats that all antis are democrats which is not the case.

There are Dems that get NRA support. I don't assume they are all anti gun, but let's be real they are in the minority.

jj1962hemi
April 8, 2012, 12:28 PM
I gotta say,....if there were no NRA, we'd all be marching down to registered clubs, to our out-of-home-rented gun safes, to grab air guns to shoot at paper targets in registered matches.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water! One of the guys behind the counter at my LGS doesn't support the NRA "because they don't spend enough in our state." I think it's because he doesn't want to spend the money. Other people don't like the phone calls and junk mail appeals. The NRA has doubled in size over the past 10-20 years. Think of the things that have happened, post-President G.H.W. Bush in 1992:

-The Assault Weapons Ban is dead
-49 States and Washington D.C. have some provision for CC
-Castle doctrine laws are becoming commonplace
-Stand your ground laws are growing in popularity
-Open carry laws are growing
-"Constitutional Carry" is the next thing
-Gun ownership is growing
-"Top Shot" and all kinds of other pro-gun images are growing on TV

I say double down! We could lose the slim 2A majority on the SCOTUS, but the more people that purchase and enjoy firearms, the harder it will be to falsely demonize them. We also have a wave of ex-military kids coming down the pipeline that will embrace these values of freedom. I do whatever I can to talk about my hobbies, my daughters' involvement, my safe and respectful treatment of weapons, etc.

Now is not the time to back off. The media hates guns, yet the statistics prove out the claims that "relaxation" of gun laws have not led to anything other than more self-reliant people.

Nushif
April 8, 2012, 12:42 PM
-The Assault Weapons Ban is dead
-49 States and Washington D.C. have some provision for CC
-Castle doctrine laws are becoming commonplace
-Stand your ground laws are growing in popularity
-Open carry laws are growing
-"Constitutional Carry" is the next thing
-Gun ownership is growing
-"Top Shot" and all kinds of other pro-gun images are growing on TV

None of this happened though because of "conservative values" and the NRA becoming more and more right wing.
This happened because the right wing rhetoric has become less and less, so much so, as a matter of fact that I was even considering joining up.
But I am telling you right now:
If the NRA becomes yet another partisan shrieking voice in this televised drama we call "politics" all those great things are gonna go away very, very quick, because pro-2A middle to left wing folks like me, who are right now mildly willing to step into the organized 2A side are gonna scram really, really fast when the rhetoric against us is cranked up.

And I really, really hope that this one ticker is just another sensationalist soundbite, because if it's true, we'll be dealing a blow to all these great things that happened.

bigfinger76
April 8, 2012, 12:45 PM
Double down, yes. On 2A. All other issues are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Likely just overblown media hype. But if true, this will not be a good thing.

I am not your "majority" gun owner, but I am an adamant gun owner. Why risk alienating those like me? This is our common ground here, guys.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 8, 2012, 12:46 PM
The fact they do things like support Harry Reid is one of the reasons I'm not a member. A move away from that is a good thing IMO.

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 8, 2012, 12:59 PM
I won't become an NRA member until they do what they promised to do 26 years ago, challenge and defeat the Hughes Amendment which flat out bans new machine guns.

Old krow
April 8, 2012, 01:09 PM
None of this happened though because of "conservative values" and the NRA becoming more and more right wing.

That's only partially true. The truth is, the country is becoming more and more polarized. Everything is moving more and more toward one side or the other. The compass is spinning and there's no real way to tell "true north" these days.

As bipartisan as I possibly can, I will say this (or attempt to do so) without venturing too far into politics or partisanship as I can. You Libs are more than welcome to jump into the fight any time you're ready. :) Of course the NRA leans a little Right, that's because it's primarily made up of the Right atm. Change it. It's difficult at best to complain about the direction the NRA is going if you're not helping steer it.

BaltimoreBoy
April 8, 2012, 01:13 PM
Why would anyone assume that NRA would abandon a sound tactical doctrine that has served them well for decades, since old Harlon Carter was in the saddle, based on a single unreliable source?

jahwarrior
April 8, 2012, 01:23 PM
One more reason NOT to support the NRA.:mad:

Nushif
April 8, 2012, 01:29 PM
Remember. This isn't exactly confirmed. It's likely an overhyped sound-bite.

jj1962hemi
April 8, 2012, 01:31 PM
I think any left-of-political-center gun rights supporters are perfectly welcome in my NRA and in The NRA. The story's overblown. The truth is that, generally, pro-gun, pro-hunting, etc. is much more often a position held by people that are more conservative. Traditional, constitutional (more strictly so) values are the hallmark of conservatism which doesn't necessarily mean "Republican" as much as it means a preference toward measured change. The polarization of our times has coopted some of this, but the two parties have also embraced the competing sides of this issue. The only Democrats (besides the odd Harry Reid or Tom Daschle type) that embrace gun rights tend to be people like Heath Shuler or other "Blue Dogs" (which used to be moderative-to-conservative Democrats)...and they are viewed negatively within their party's central organization. Gerrymandering (by both parties) has exacerbated this polarization by allowing more extreme politicians to remain electable by both parties.

Don't get me wrong, my views are pretty conservative, but our issue (2A) has become my main issue because it speaks to many other values I hold dear. Generally, somebody that supports gun control/elimination is also a fan of bigger government, more government intervention in our lives, less self-determination, etc. I would love to see this one get de-coupled from party issues.

As for the NRA supporting ALEC, since there are only 4MM NRA members, and probably 20 times that in people that are pretty conservative but don't join up, it makes sense for the NRA to chase as much low hanging fruit as possible. Thankfully, we have also seen the beginnings of some nice outreach to the African American community (Otis MacDonald was great here) and some other growing constituencies should be on the NRA's radar. I imagine retirees, handicapped people, gay people,....I can see lots and lots of potential value in CC for people that historically wouldn't align with the average hunter.

We need to do more outreach, but I think the NRA should be "A Big Tent" and I have been supportive of that.

browningguy
April 8, 2012, 01:36 PM
I belong to the NRA only to support 2A issues.

I do not support "conservative" social issues so if they are moving that way I will unfortunately have to get out.

jj1962hemi
April 8, 2012, 02:21 PM
I think it would be worthwhile to read the monthly magazines, websites, etc. and judge for ourselves. The people at CNN have a view that is so far different from my own that they misunderstand these issues, and they have an agenda (IMO). I don't notice any issues, other than gun-related or pro-armed forces related ones in The American Rifleman.

we are not amused
April 8, 2012, 03:24 PM
First of all, you have to consider the source. It was CNN, and just a ticker in the bottom of the screen. While CNN may not be as bad as NBC, MSNBC, or ABC, they are still an extreme Left-wing, agenda driven propaganda source.

I keep hearing from all the Left-wing pro-gun people on this site, about how you support gun rights, and I have to ask. Why is all the anti-gun legislation coming from the Left? Why don't you put a stop to it? Why is Sen. Harry Reid the only pro-gun National Democratic leader that I can name? I know that there are a lot of lesser known Democrats who support gun rights, but Harry Reid is the only one on the National stage. Why?

Perhaps the Liberals ought to do a little house cleaning. If they are unable to, perhaps they ought to rethink their position on why they support Progressive Liberals.

Since all we have is a bunch of Liberals claiming that the NRA is now actively promoting other causes beyond that of gun rights, I am going to put the rumor in the definite NRA bashing category.

If you don't support the NRA, then you don't support gun rights.

It is pretty much as simple as that. While they aren't the only pro gun organization around, they are the largest and most influential. If you don't belong to the NRA, just who do you support? The Brady bunch?

JohnBT
April 8, 2012, 04:35 PM
"Let's try to stick to the issue, and not devolve into an NRA-bashing thread"

Devolve? You post an unsubstantiated story and no facts and you're afraid the thread will devolve into bashing the NRA? Man, you started the bashing when you titled the thread. Sheesh.

Fwiw, I read a article on this in the paper the other day. It is almost entirely about the organizations sharing directors (as was mentioned earlier.)

John

P.S. - Can't find the newspaper story, but here's the CNN story. Mountain out of a molehill.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-06/politics/politics_nra-alec_1_nra-officials-alec-gun-rights?_s=PM:POLITICS

Scimmia
April 8, 2012, 06:06 PM
Read the article before getting pissed off. This "headline" is purely speculation based on the fact that one lobbyist that works with the NRA has also lobbied for other causes. Nothing else. Inventing a conspiracy where none exists.

youngda9
April 8, 2012, 06:22 PM
I've seen no links or supporting info on this. NOthing credible. Amazed at all of the people passing judgement without the facts.

I've got some swampland in FL if anyone's interested :) We are a gullible bunch, so sad.

ChuteTheMall
April 8, 2012, 06:56 PM
I don't believe in pro-gun democrats anyway; they are wolves in sheep's clothing using some token pro-gun votes to fool their constituents at re-election time while still supporting in all other ways the anti-gun liberals who own the democrat party.

Al Gore Jr started his career as one of those mythical pro-gun democrats, until he came out of the closet.

Gotta defeat any anti-gun republicans in the primaries.:banghead:

alsaqr
April 8, 2012, 07:20 PM
I think it would be worthwhile to read the monthly magazines, websites, etc. and judge for ourselves.[/QUOTE]

i read my NRA magazine faithfully every month and stay abreast of real threats to our Second Amendment rights. The NRA became involved in "conservative" causes outside its charter when NRA president David Keene came aboard. Keene is a long time political operative who began his career in politics with vice president Spiro Agnew. From 1984-2011 Keene was president of the American Conservative Union.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/keene.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Keene

i have espoused real conservatism for over 50 years. i don't need Keene and the NRA to educate me in the gaggle of feel good stuff they call "conservatism". The NRA will rue the day they got involved in political issues outside of gun advocacy.

we are not amused
April 8, 2012, 07:45 PM
Yawn!

This has just turned into a NRA bash!

SARDiver
April 8, 2012, 07:45 PM
HEY! Looks like CNN was going for exactly the kind of reaction they got from left-of-center gun owners.

Well done!

Johannes_Paulsen
April 8, 2012, 07:46 PM
If this were true, it would not be a step forward.

That said, I have detected a recent trend in which certain people on the political left have been targeting the NRA leadership. It's true (and not unexpected) that the NRA leadership trends rightward. That, by itself, does not disqualify any good work that they do to defend the right to keep and bear arms. But this website recently hit my Google 'radar', and ever since I noticed it, I noticed an increase in the number of articles of the sort mentioned in the original post: http://www.meetthenra.org/

JohnBT
April 8, 2012, 10:08 PM
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/keene.html

That's a link to a 2004 article. And wikipedia? PBS and wikipedia. That's not what I call staying abreast.

You aren't the only one with 50+ years invested.

jj1962hemi
April 8, 2012, 10:15 PM
Interesting how the "Meet the NRA" people don't talk about where their support comes from. What a bunch of ridiculous slander.

alsaqr
April 8, 2012, 10:18 PM
That's not what I call staying abreast.

Sorry its not more to your liking: wnd or examiner.com; that is. David A. Keene:

http://www.conservative.org/about-acu/board-of-directorsstaff/david-a-keene/

valnar
April 8, 2012, 10:35 PM
If there are so many Pro 2A liberals, why are only the most blue states anti 2A? The NRA is only one outlet. If the pro-gun liberals truly wanted to make a difference, get working on California, Illinois and D.C. The Republicans have no chance to change those places - we lack representation.

mrvco
April 8, 2012, 10:39 PM
Such a move would be a big mistake.

Whatever good and wholesome "American" meaning that "conservative values" had has been hopelessly co-opted by the neocons and the religious right.

jj1962hemi
April 8, 2012, 11:54 PM
I don't get the point about people like David Keene or Tara Mica. If you work for a special interest organization and you're effective, you may move to another one. These people are good at building support, so they get hired. Plenty of lobbyists work for one group after another. David Keene may be a huge conservative, but the NRA is fairly mainstream....except for its views on gun rights. It makes sense that a higher % of conservatives would be involved with and targeted by the NRA. If the people in the ACLU could be "turned" toward supporting gun rights, the NRA would go after them too. The NRA should use the most effective means possible to expand membership and get the message out. I've never read about pro-life or traditional marriage issues in any of my NRA magazines. If you don't like the NRA, fine. But don't attribute behaviors to them inaccurately.

buckeye8
April 9, 2012, 12:07 AM
Firstly, I seriously doubt this is true. Sounds like media distortion. The NRA has, for years, touted the fact that they are a 'single-issue' organization. To move away from this ideal would be a monumental reversal of philosophy, and one that would make little sense for an already growing and successful organization.

The NRA knows where its bread is buttered. The solidarity that comes with being a single-issue organization would be permanently and irreversibly shattered if they adopted any cause that was not directly related to the Second Amendment. People trust that their NRA donations are an investment which will protect and expand their gun rights. Messing with that trust would be a very, very dangerous step for the NRA.

Wayne LaPierre and company are many things, but they are almost certainly not stupid enough to take the organization in such a direction as described by the OP.

Jim NE
April 9, 2012, 12:45 AM
I know there are at least a few leftists in our state legislature who have ccw permits, so there is support from that political perspective.

I have different take than some of the other posters. I've felt that many Constitutionally minded/centered people have been too focused ONLY on gun rights activism.


With this shooting in Florida recently, I think the NRA sees the writing on the wall. It won't be long before some people start calling the NRA a "hate group" and try to start passing laws against "hate speech." Think it won't happen? How could you think that the gov that's out to get your 2nd A rights, isn't out to get your 1st?? Freedom of speech is already being seriously curtailed in Europe for the sake of this political agenda.

I'd like to see a broader approach to protect constitutional rights. Maybe the NRA shouldn't cover the whole spectrum, but they could cover at least part of it. Of course, I'm presuming that this is the direction an expanded NRA would go, and I don't know for a fact that it is. Have to wait and see.

Also, be honest, what's the REAL reason CCW laws sprang up in almost all of the states in roughly a small 15 year slice of our country's 235 year history? It's because the violent crime rate in the early to mid 1990's was at an HISTORIC all time high. It was unbelievable. Law enforcement simply couldn't protect everyone. CCW laws helped bring the crime rate down, but if concerted efforts had been made to discourage the growth of a criminal class in America over the last 40 years, the crime rates never would've gone up in the first place. Something to ponder.

jj1962hemi
April 9, 2012, 08:47 AM
I agree with Jim on a broader look at Constitutional rights. I was amazed that, after donating extra money to the NRA (who joined the ACLU) to fight President Clinton's national ID card plan, that THE WHOLE COUNTRY rolled over with the Patriot Act and other encroachments in a fearful response to 9/11. It was sick to see how many conservatives supported the Patriot Act (and other things) rather than appear to not support President Bush. This type of blind group-thinking is how the fascists came to power in Germany and Italy. I really don't understand how little attention people pay to history and fail to understand that the reason it repeats itself has to do more with human nature than some magical formula that traps us unwittingly.

I think the gun issue is sometimes a proxy for many others that relate to freedom. We have been sacrificing freedom in the name of safety and getting neither as far as I'm concerned.

Waywatcher
April 9, 2012, 09:03 AM
Here's the link. (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-06/politics/politics_nra-alec_1_nra-officials-alec-gun-rights?_s=PM:POLITICS)

I must say, I saw this coming. Just in the 5 years I was a member they started having more pictures (in a positive light) of people like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, et al. The chicken littling about Obama has proven to be utterly baseless.

I let my membership lapse in February, and it was mainly due to the fact that, in my opinion, the NRA had become increasingly a right-wing mouthpiece, instead of a gun rights organization.

Justin
April 9, 2012, 09:05 AM
But this website recently hit my Google 'radar', and ever since I noticed it, I noticed an increase in the number of articles of the sort mentioned in the original post: http://www.meetthenra.org/

That website is owned and operated by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, an offshoot of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. CSGV is an outright prohibitionist organization so extreme they make Sarah Brady look like Ted Nugent. That they are uncritically quoted in the CNN article as being either authoritative or balanced in any way shows the extent of CNN's bias.


Before believing anything on the Meet the NRA website, I'd strongly suggest considering the source and the clear and obvious anti-gun agenda they wish to spread.

valnar
April 9, 2012, 09:41 AM
I'm a conservative and agree that the NRA has become more right-wing in general. Wayne LaPierre's editorials on Obama should be proof of that. However, since I am a conservative, they don't bother me. I can see how they would bother my liberal brothers.

That being said, you cannot discount the harm many Democratic politicians are doing to our gun rights. F&F, Holder and Obama most recently, not to mention recent SCOTUS appointments. There are reasons to be concerned.

There are two ways to get our gun rights restored. One way is to attack the issues, through the courts, or in the legislature (lobbying). The other way is to attack those who oppose it, and vote in people who are pro-gun. Sometimes fighting for the issue is a moot point when the wrong people are in place. It's easier to simply vote in people who are on your side than to try to sway those against you. Yes, that means voting in more Republicans. Turning people away from Obama to vote in a Republican President is an obvious tactic, especially since that President would be appointing one or two more SC Judges. This has to be obvious to anyone, including those on the left, that it needs no more explanation.

berettaprofessor
April 9, 2012, 10:59 AM
I saw the article on CNN this weekend. I dismissed it as an anti-gun hit piece with little fact and a whole bunch of innuendo. So someone that the NRA pays to lobby also lobbied for conservative causes? Lobbyists can work for more than one organization at a time, doesn't mean their clients hold all the same views.

sugarmaker
April 9, 2012, 10:59 AM
The long term problem with this is if NRA deviates significantly from single issue firearms rights, it's funding base will deviate also. At some point the directors may decide to throw some gun rights issues under the bus to secure more broad based funding. Firearms rights should not be a left-right issue, I know many liberal persons who are strongly 2A.

gfanikf
April 9, 2012, 11:01 AM
The reason I actually joined the NRA is because they are a single-issue Juggernaut. I have no desire to fund any other issues besides the protection of the 2A and it's related properties (I'll toss in hunting too). I could have joined other groups if I wanted the spectrum, but I didn't. It's something I hope the NRA keeps in mind. I look at their desire to gain exemption from some lobbying law, and an article that talked about their funding and support for Democratic Candidates as solace in my choice.

From 2010, but it talks a little about the subject (I'll try and find the one with the chart).
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/House/2010/1008/Why-the-NRA-is-rallying-behind-endangered-Democrats

Support from well-funded gun-rights groups was a key factor in the Republican conquest of the House in 1994, and Democrats ever since have tempered their attacks on the gun industry. When the Obama administration proposed reviving the assault weapons ban in March 2009, 65 House Democrats signed a letter opposing it.
I've seen similar large numbers in the senate on the Small Arms Treaty.


I'm a conservative and agree that the NRA has become more right-wing in general. Wayne LaPierre's editorials on Obama should be proof of that. However, since I am a conservative, they don't bother me. I can see how they would bother my liberal brothers.

Someone needs to tell him if he's going to quote Admiral Yamamoto, "White House" quote not to do the out of context selective quoting of it. That drives me nuts not as a liberal/conservative, but as someone who studies history. That said I see skim them, occasionally roll my eyes and move on to the actual articles. Also when I see the legislative updates I'm fine with the way my money is being spent.

Then again I view (idealistically no doubt) the Second Amendment and firearms as neither Democrat/Republican or Liberal/Conservative, but as a universal American value to be cherished and protected. It's opponents are Anti-Constitution and Anti-Gun (that later for family lol) and who move all around the political spectrum and socio-economic backgrounds (same for those pro).

Jim NE
April 9, 2012, 11:36 AM
It was sick to see how many conservatives supported the Patriot Act (and other things) rather than appear to not support President Bush. This type of blind group-thinking is how the fascists came to power in Germany and Italy. I really don't understand how little attention people pay to history and fail to understand that the reason it repeats itself has to do more with human nature than some magical formula that traps us unwittingly.



+1. Well put.

Steel Horse Rider
April 9, 2012, 12:03 PM
Why would they think supporting Constitutional (conservative) issues would identify them with Republicans? The leadership of the Republican party has been lacking in Constitutional values for some time. Perhaps the NRA can just say that they are supporting American Constitutional issues which would make them an organization I could support.

alsaqr
April 9, 2012, 12:35 PM
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.

3. 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.

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.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 9, 2012, 12:43 PM
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.

Would you prefer an NRA that excuses itself from the table then? You have to play with one party or the other to get anything done. And one party has a much larger history of being anti-gun.

jerkface11
April 9, 2012, 12:50 PM
2. In 1994 and again in 1996 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.

We count Bill Clinton as conservative now?

alsaqr
April 9, 2012, 01:14 PM
. In 1994 and again in 1996 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.

Sorry for the typo. Supposed to be 1984 and 1986.

valnar
April 9, 2012, 02:11 PM
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.
etc..
All very good comebacks. No argument there....I wish Reagan and Bush did more. However, a few points are to be taken in context.

1) The President cannot act alone without Congress, bi-partisan support and the American people. There are a thousand potential issues a President can tackle in 4-8 years (eg. healthcare). Whose fault is it that this was not front and center? There may not have been enough push from us to make a change, for which WE are at fault.
2) Some politicians tend to move a bit more center once elected since they now have to appease everyone, not just their party. Introducing new (pro) gun legislation is more dangerous than just doing nothing.
3) While I find apathy as distasteful as the next person, it is at least better than pushing a blatant anti-gun agenda. A very VERY pro-gun agenda would not get a politician elected, period.

While I find this sad, I'd rather have a luke-warm pro-gun person get elected, than a hard-core pro-gun person lose. It's regrettable that blatantly anti-gun politicians don't have this as a problem.

It's not fair that we have to take baby steps forward, while "they" can take huge leaps back unencumbered. We fight the good fight and do the best that we can.

alsaqr
April 9, 2012, 02:27 PM
Two of those "conservative" presidents brought us gun control with the stroke of a pen: No action by congress required. Another "conservative" president promised to sign an extension of the AWB if it reached his desk: Thankfully it did not.

Gordon_Freeman
April 9, 2012, 02:45 PM
I'm sure there is no truth to this NRA rumor. All of you Democrat gun owners like to point out a small minority of Republicans who favor gun control when the majority of Democrats favor gun control. I understand why you don't like Republicans, so why not consider the Libertarian party? Sorry to get political about this, but it's a fact that most Democrats do not like private firearm ownership. Just take a look at the states controlled by Democrats and look at their gun laws. California, New York, Massachusetts and others. It really is just that simple to see where they stand on the issue.

gfanikf
April 9, 2012, 03:16 PM
I'm sure there is no truth to this NRA rumor. All of you Democrat gun owners like to point out a small minority of Republicans who favor gun control when the majority of Democrats favor gun control. I understand why you don't like Republicans, so why not consider the Libertarian party?

I can't answer it without get political (or discussing why I really don't like a certain candidate), but in many ways it's just as much a square peg trying to fit in a round hole. Also in PA outside of Philly and Pitt, Gun Control isn't really that big and you can have your cake and eat it too. Not saying I agree with all his views, but look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Kanjorski

Hope that helps a little.

Besides I also give you Montana's Governor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer

Schweitzer is opposed to gun control[17] and is a vehement critic of the REAL ID legislation.[27]
Schweitzer signed into Law the Montana Firearms Freedom Act on April 15, 2009 which became effective October 1, 2009. The law exempts firearms made and kept in Montana from Federal firearms regulations. It applies mostly to non-military types of firearms, along with ammunition and accessories such as silencers,[28] provided that these items are manufactured in the state, and do not leave the state.


In April 2011, Schweitzer made news with his unconventional use of a branding iron to publicly veto several Republican-led bills that he called "frivolous, unconstitutional, or in direct contradiction to the expressed will of the people of Montana."[30][31]

Old krow
April 9, 2012, 03:31 PM
All of you Democrat gun owners like to point out a small minority of Republicans who favor gun control when the majority of Democrats favor gun control. I understand why you don't like Republicans, so why not consider the Libertarian party? Sorry to get political about this, but it's a fact that most Democrats do not like private firearm ownership.

I don't think that's accurate. There was a poll once that showed 71% of Americans thought that the 2nd applied to civilians and 21% thought that it did not. 9% declined to answer. I don't doubt that the majority of anti-gun politicians lie in the Democratic party, but, it's still less than half of democrats that are in favor. Maybe the majority of gun control comes from the Left, but not the majority of the Left are in favor of gun control.

I can tell you why the Dems don't vote Libertarian in many case. The same reason Reps won't do it. Each side is scared the other side will gain control. For the most part we stopped voting on issues a while back. It's fear mongering that isn't all that much different from propagating an "ammo scare." It's pretty much ping-pong between the lesser of two evils and it's getting worse. In this tug-of-war each side chips away a little at the COTUS and the only people that really lost anything was us. I think that the fact that the number of Independent Voters in the US is growing is a sign of the disdain. The 2nd is one of the lucky Amendments in that it has advocacy groups as large and powerful as the NRA. I would suggest that every gun owner join, or at least join another, because we'll need them more and more as this divide grows.

Until we wake up and smell the coffee, the NRA (and pro gun lobby at large) is about the only barrier between us and political agenda run-a-muck. If every gun owner in the US was a member of the NRA, it wouldn't matter who you voted for anymore, gun wouldn't be on the menu.

As time goes and this divide grows, I think that you'll see more of more of this anti-NRA propaganda. Once the NRA is gone, the 2nd will go about as fast as the 4th has.

Steel Horse Rider
April 9, 2012, 04:00 PM
I don't believe either Bush can properly be called "conservative" unless the standard is the press or progressivism. Neither followed the Constitution very closely and neither controlled the growth in scope or power of the government. That is the problem with the terms "liberal" and "conservative" today, they both have a floating definition determined by the viewpoint of the one casting the definition. That is why I prefer the terms "collectivist" or "individualist".

hang fire
April 9, 2012, 04:54 PM
WinThePennant
Member



Join Date: July 8, 2011
Posts: 416 I have voted Democrat many times.

I am a lifetime member of the NRA


LOL, must be lonely when you meet up with fellow dems. I never met a true dem who was not anti gun, the dem pols who claim not to be, are lying to get elected.

Old krow
April 9, 2012, 05:06 PM
I never met a true dem who was not anti gun, the dem pols who claim not to be, are lying to get elected.

More like...

"I have never met a true politician who was not anti gun, the politician pols who claim to be, are lying to get elected."

It is, or should be, the nature of all politicians to be fearful of an armed public. If that were not the case, the Founding Fathers would have given us "the right to throw rotten fruit" instead.

brickeyee
April 9, 2012, 06:19 PM
Looks like CNN remains scared of the NRA's political muscle.

Anything to try and split or discredit your opponent.

Bill Clinton said the NRA costs the dems control of congress.

gc70
April 9, 2012, 06:59 PM
The CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/politics/nra-alec/index.html) is a hatchet job on the NRA and part of a smear campaign against corporate supporters of Stand Your Ground laws.

This week, Coca-Cola and Kraft announced they are pulling their corporate memberships from a conservative group that was behind the spread of "stand your ground" laws like the one highlighted in Florida by the Trayvon Martin case.

The first paragraph makes it clear that the CNN article is aimed directly at eroding support for Stand Your Ground laws. CNN apparently got most (all?) of its material from the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). CMD is mounting an all-out attack on Stand Your Ground laws and is trying to smear or shame any supporters of those laws, but the NRA in particular.Groups Attempt to Deliver Letter to ALEC re: ALEC/NRA "Kill at Will" Law (http://prwatch.org/news/2012/03/11396/groups-attempt-deliver-letter-alec-re-alecnra-kill-will-law)
ALEC Ratified NRA-Conceived Law That May Protect Trayvon Martin's Killer (http://prwatch.org/news/2012/03/11366/alec-ratified-nra-conceived-law-may-protect-trayvon-martins-killer)
Faces of NRA/ALEC "Stand your Ground" Law (http://prwatch.org/news/2012/03/11384/faces-nraalec-stand-your-ground-law)
Resources for Investigating ALEC/NRA Gun Bills (http://prwatch.org/news/2012/03/11393/resources-investigating-alecnra-gun-bills)
Not Just the NRA: Former ALEC Leader, the Head of Gun Owners of America, Sides With Shooter of Trayvon Martin (http://prwatch.org/news/2012/04/11394/not-just-nra-former-alec-leader-head-gun-owners-america-sides-shooter-trayvon-mar)
The Corporations Bankrolling ALEC, which Has Promoted the "Stand Your Ground" Gun Law as a "Model" Bill (http://prwatch.org/news/2012/03/11383/corporations-bankrolling-alec-which-has-promoted-stand-your-ground-gun-law-model-)

CMD plays the classic game of guilt-by-association, but the CNN article even exaggerates the CMD innuendo.CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/politics/nra-alec/index.html) - Less well known is that the NRA has also helped ALEC spread other conservative laws that have nothing to do with gun rights.CMD (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/03/11393/resources-investigating-alecnra-gun-bills) - The NRA has been a long-time member and long-time funder of ALEC. An NRA representative has served on the Public Safety and Elections Task Force, and its predecessor Crime Committees, for many years. Tara Mica, NRA-Institute for Legislative Action State Liaison, was the co-chair of ALEC's Public Safety and Elections Task Force in 2008, 2009, 2010, and parts of 2011. While the NRA was co-chair, that Task Force approved the controversial "voter ID" bill and the Arizona anti-immigrant legislation, SB 1070, as model bills, in addition to other gun laws.

gc70
April 9, 2012, 07:02 PM
Here are some of the things the NRA pursued through its ALEC membership.2011 ALEC Annual Meeting Substantive Agenda
The following new model legislation was introduced:
- "Gun Owners' Privacy and Access to Health Care Act" (by Tara Mica, National Rifle Association)
- "Honesty in Firearms Act" (by Tara Mica, National Rifle Association)
- "Disposition of Firearms in State or Local Custody Act" (by Tara Mica, National Rifle Association)

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 (http://prwatch.org/news/2012/03/11393/resources-investigating-alecnra-gun-bills)

ALEC Resolution on McDonald vs. Chicago
Campus Personal Protection Act
Castle Doctrine Act
Concealed Carry Outright Recognition Act
Concealed Carry True Reciprocity Act
Consistency in Firearms Regulation Act
Criminal History Record Check for Firearm Sales Act
Defense of Free Market and Public Safety Resolution
Emergency Powers Firearm Owner Protection Act
Resolution on Child Firearms Safety
Resolution on Firearms Purchase Waiting Periods
Resolution on Semiautomatic Firearms
Resolution on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Youth Firearm Safety Resolution

General Tso
April 9, 2012, 07:28 PM
I'm a pro-gun liberal democrat and I will NOT support the NRA. There are so many thing that they could do and won't. They simply use scare tactics to get money to support the GOP.

The 68 GCA, the importation of military surplus guns, Chinese guns, permit-less CCW, etc.
They do nothing in regards to changing these things.

jerkface11
April 9, 2012, 07:38 PM
They do nothing in regards to changing these things.

I bet the people you vote for do though.

Dazen
April 9, 2012, 07:38 PM
That website is owned and operated by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, an offshoot of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. CSGV is an outright prohibitionist organization so extreme they make Sarah Brady look like Ted Nugent. That they are uncritically quoted in the CNN article as being either authoritative or balanced in any way shows the extent of CNN's bias.


Before believing anything on the Meet the NRA website, I'd strongly suggest considering the source and the clear and obvious anti-gun agenda they wish to spread.


That sums it all up.

jj1962hemi
April 9, 2012, 09:43 PM
For the record, I mistakenly voted for Ross Perot in 1992 to avoid voting again for a Republican that supported the AWB. I never thought President Clinton would get a second term, but the press gave him credit for all the economic good that was done by Reagan era policies and a Gingrich-driven house. This is why it's better to vote for a moderate Republican than a liberal Democrat if you care about 2A and other issues. Four years of anyone else will cause less damage than four more years of what we have now.

jerkface11
April 9, 2012, 10:12 PM
Not that it will matter this year. We get to choose between a republican who signed an AWB into law and the guy behind fast and furious.

Neverwinter
April 10, 2012, 12:21 AM
The CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/politics/nra-alec/index.html) is a hatchet job on the NRA and part of a smear campaign against corporate supporters of Stand Your Ground laws.
This is only one facet which was picked out of the coverage of the overall activities of ALEC regarding their efforts towards writing legislation. The work that ALEC has done encompasses a broader scope of questionable laws than just Stand Your Ground, as noted in the last quote: "While the NRA was co-chair, that Task Force approved the controversial "voter ID" bill and the Arizona anti-immigrant legislation, SB 1070, as model bills, in addition to other gun laws."

gc70
April 10, 2012, 12:53 AM
The work that ALEC has done encompasses a broader scope of questionable laws than just Stand Your Ground

I don't consider Stand Your Ground laws to be questionable, but to each their own.

JohnBT
April 10, 2012, 07:35 AM
"their efforts towards writing legislation."

Anyone can write legislation. You can, I can, the guy on the corner can. It's getting the votes to pass the bill into law that's difficult. Iow, it doesn't matter who writes the legislation.

HoosierQ
April 10, 2012, 07:38 AM
Bad idea...very bad. I am sending them money to protect the 2nd Amendment...not to protect or oppose anything else. I want something else protected or opposed, I'll send money to those folks.

Here's another reason that would be a bad idea. 2nd Amendment supporters cross all parts of the political spectrum...yes Virginia there are liberals in the NRA and liberals who support the 2nd Amendment...and there certainly are Libertarians. Not to mention that conservatives are not a single bloc of people who all support the same thing.

Supporting the 2nd Amendment, shooter's rights, and shooting, the NRA has a nice focused mission that will draw the most support it can. Start piggy backing other issues, they are quite simply (at best) loose as many new members as they gain or (at worst) loose more than they gain.

Bad idea all around. So now the American Rifleman becomes the American...well it's too crazy to even make jokes.

alsaqr
April 10, 2012, 07:43 AM
Anyone can write legislation. You can, I can, the guy on the corner can. It's getting the votes to pass the bill into law that's difficult. Iow, it doesn't matter who writes the legislation.

+1
One of the most prolific legislation writers in the US congress is our anti-gun nemesis, Charles Schumer. Schumer writes and proposes legislation in a wide range of areas. About three percent of his proposed legislation becomes law.

Ryanxia
April 10, 2012, 09:13 AM
I'll have to keep my eye out for any big changes like this but hopefully it's all exagerated/nonsense.

Wanderling
April 10, 2012, 10:42 AM
Am I the only one who makes a distinction between "conservative" and Republican ? G W Bush and Dick Cheney were, in my opinion, the most radical, constitution-hating, free spending, corrupt politicians since FDR died. I think NRA should stick to their base goal.

Jim NE
April 10, 2012, 11:40 AM
Am I the only one who makes a distinction between "conservative" and Republican ?

I have to agree. "Democrat" and "Republican" seem to be the yin and yang of the same thing - two halves to a whole to make it seem like were getting a choice.

I think it's better to view candidates in the context of the entire Constitution, though, not JUST the 2nd Amendment (as important as that is.) It's easy for someone who despises the Constitution to simply say "I'm pro gun."

Old krow
April 10, 2012, 12:06 PM
Am I the only one who makes a distinction between "conservative" and Republican ?

Sure, I agree with you. But then there is Liberal and Democrat... same distinction?

We get to choose between a republican who signed an AWB into law

In his defense, and it takes a some effort because I'm not a fan, the bill was signed into law in 1998 and was permanent when it passed. There was no sunset provision. Read the bill that he signed and you'll see that the bill afforded hunters and shooters a little more than they already... which wasn't all that much.

benEzra
April 11, 2012, 11:58 AM
I am withholding judgement until I can dig into this and find out whether the NRA is actually supporting conservative causes, rather than focusing strictly and exclusively on gun rights as it should.

if they are true, then the NRA needs to refocus and remember that it represents *all* gun owners, not just the ~half who happen to be Republican, or the much-smaller-than-half who are very socially conservative, and that linking gun ownership to social conservatism is a big-time losing proposition in the long run.

I personally am not just nonconservative, I am anticonservative on a whole lot of civil liberties issues where conservatives advocate less freedom (cf. Santorum's attacks on libertarians, or various religious bills at the state level), and those of you who know my background will understand why. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with conservatives (and liberals, and libertarians) who support RKBA on the RKBA issue alone, but any organization that moves beyond RKBA into "social conservative" issues loses me, and will gain my active opposition.

Having said that, I am not saying that these allegations are true; I don't know if they are or not, and I am skeptical. But if they do prove to be true, then the NRA needs some serious refocusing, IMO.

Wanderling
April 11, 2012, 05:39 PM
The whole "liberal" vs "conservative" divide is largely made up so that the two parties could keep their base.

Any thinking person simply doesn't subscribe to a pre-canned set of ideas. I am "liberal" on some issues, "conservative" on others, and moderate on most. I bet most people who don't just vote for a XX party because their parents told them to 30 years ago are the same way. If NRA turns into a Republican puppet it will lose my support.

Ingsoc75
April 11, 2012, 08:55 PM
Don't like gay marriages? Don't get one.
Don't like cigarettes? Don't smoke one.
Don't like abortions? Don't have one.
Don't like sex? Don't do it.
Don't like drugs? Don't do them.
Don't like porn? Don't watch it.
Don't like alcohol? Don't drink it.
Don't like guns? Don't buy one.
Don't like your rights taken away?
Then don't take away someone else's.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 12, 2012, 03:35 AM
Don't like gay marriages? Don't get one.
Don't like cigarettes? Don't smoke one.
Don't like abortions? Don't have one.
Don't like sex? Don't do it.
Don't like drugs? Don't do them.
Don't like porn? Don't watch it.
Don't like alcohol? Don't drink it.
Don't like guns? Don't buy one.
Don't like your rights taken away?
Then don't take away someone else's.

Sometimes it's not that simple. Particularly the two points I bolded in your post. Points of view differ. What one sees as a collection of cells, another sees as a human life being murdered for convenience. It's not as simple as letting go and compromising.

Lucifer_Sam
April 12, 2012, 06:46 AM
Sometimes it's not that simple. Particularly the two points I bolded in your post. Points of view differ. What one sees as a collection of cells, another sees as a human life being murdered for convenience. It's not as simple as letting go and compromising.

Yes it is. Mind your own business if you expect others to mind theirs. Do you think that you have the monopoly on reason and that all arguments against the other freedoms/choices listed in Ingsocs post are invalid? There are plenty of things that I dont approve of and I have plenty of reasons why others shouldn't do them, but I still wouldn't step on anyones right to do something if they so choose.

You are aware that your forum name is taken from a book by a pro-choice atheist, right?

Anyway, to the topic at hand, bad idea for the NRA if true.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 12, 2012, 06:57 AM
You are aware that your forum name is taken from a book by a pro-choice atheist, right?

Yep. And she would be appalled if I just blindly copied her thoughts and didn't form my own. What's your point?


Mind your own business if you expect others to mind theirs.

Murder is everyone's business.

benEzra
April 12, 2012, 08:14 AM
To haul this thread back on topic...the NRA's job is RKBA, and RKBA alone. If they associate themselves with social conservative causes---which many gun owners oppose as much as we oppose new gun restrictions---then they shoot themselves in the foot and alienate a lot of their support.

For the NRA to remain effective, it *must* stay neither socially conservative nor socially liberal. It needs to stand outside of that fray and stick to its core mission and that mission alone.

Hypnogator
April 12, 2012, 09:21 AM
For the NRA to remain effective, it *must* stay neither socially conservative nor socially liberal. It needs to stand outside of that fray and stick to its core mission and that mission alone.

Excellent summary. When I originally posted, I had only seen the banner crawling across CNN. Part of my reason for posting was to find out more about the headline, which I did very quickly. This forum is great! :D

So, this will go into my MAAN file (Much Ado About Nothing), and I'll not second-guess the NRA leadership's decision to employ an effective lobbyist who also happens to work for other conservative causes. :cool:

Sam1911
April 12, 2012, 09:38 AM
So, this will go into my MAAN file (Much Ado About Nothing), and I'll not second-guess the NRA leadership's decision to employ an effective lobbyist who also happens to work for other conservative causes.


That seems like an excellent way to conclude. While most of us vehemently agree that the NRA needs to be absolutely tunnel-vision-focused on RKBA, this news doesn't change anything about that. Much ado about nothing, indeed.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA to expand lobbying to other conservative causes" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!