NRA to expand lobbying to other conservative causes

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.

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.

Here's the link.

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.

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/

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/Electi...e-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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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).

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.

Click to expand...

+1. Well put.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

We count Bill Clinton as conservative now?

. 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.

Click to expand...

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

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..

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

^Libertarian Party?

They are minarchists who believe that business can do no harm and that government can do no good. These people are like Jim DeMint -BLAM! I'd rather see Conservative be turned to mean Libertarian, versus the rather authoritarian Neoconservative movement, but I won't vote for something I wholeheartedly disagree with simply because of one issue.

Could we get a lock on this thread, mods? It's not going to get much better.

Gordon_Freeman said:

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?

Click to expand...

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]

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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".

WinThePennant
Member



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

I am a lifetime member of the NRA

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

The CNN article 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.

Click to expand...

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.
CMD plays the classic game of guilt-by-association, but the CNN article even exaggerates the CMD innuendo.

CNN - Less well known is that the NRA has also helped ALEC spread other conservative laws that have nothing to do with gun rights.

Click to expand...

CMD - 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.

Click to expand...