Dean supporters want NRA endorsement

[Preacherman]

From http://www.boomundo.com/dean/nra.htm:

Help Gov. Dean Get The NRA's Endorsement!
(Suggested by Mrs. Kelly Jacobs)

Gov. Dean is the only Democrat running for President to have received an "A" rating from the NRA. Dean's position on sensible gun laws should merit the NRA's endorsement of him for the democratic nomination. If the NRA, and it's 5 million plus members, were to endorse Dean it would bring a windfall of support. As Gov. Dean says, there are many people who have been voting Republican for the past 50 years - what do they have to show for it? Their children don't have health insurance either. If the gun control issue was a non-issue in the 2004 election, many NRA voters would then feel as though they could make a choice that would ACTUALLY benefit them and their families.

The NRA under CEO LaPierre has been known to mis-report its own ratings in campaign mailings when it is beneficial to the GOP; for example, in the 1998 Illinois U.S. Senate race between Carol Moseley-Braun and Peter Fitzgerald, the NRA sent postcards to voters which claimed that Fitzgerald had an "A" rating as a state legislator, when, in fact, he had only a "C." Gov. Dean, however, has widely publicized his "A" rating, and an attempt by LaPierre to distort this fact would likely backfire. If Republicans can't portray the 2004 election as a referendum on gun rights, it's unclear whether the NRA would be able to turn out such impressive numbers for Republicans as they did in the 2000 election and in the mid-term elections of 2002.

_________________________________________________________

They go on to give contact details and a sample letter to the NRA requesting their endorsement. First time I've seen a far-left Democrat (well, his supporters, actually) request an NRA endorsement!

 

[Mike Irwin]

The candidate "Grade" rankings, and NRA's use of them, is a ing travesty.

When I worked there I was appalled at some of the shenanigans that went on regarding those "grades."

That's all I'll say about that.

 

[TallPine]

And of course the NRA supports enforcement of "all existing gun laws"

 

[jsalcedo]

Give me a break.

There are very few folks that have headed executive branch in the last
35 years that weren't some kind of gun grabber when given the opprotunity.

Johnson:
GCA 68 worst piece of gun control legislation ever passed in the US
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nixon: supported GCA 68

"Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control. His on-the-record reply: 'Guns are an abomination.' Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles.
--- William Safire (originally from a New York Times column), Los Angeles Daily News, June 15, 1999, P. 15. ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carter
Lent vocal support to brady bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reagan FPA 86 (machinegun ban)

See 137 CONG.REC. H2847 (daily ed. May 8, 1991) (statement of Rep. Atkins) (announcing that he is proud to support legislation that is also backed by former Presidents Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon); id. at H2844 (statement of Rep. Roemer) (noting that Brady bill had support of former Presidents Reagan and Nixon).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush (41)

Import ban on certain semi autos 1989

Resigned his lifetime NRA membership when a NRA rep called
Govt agents jack booted thugs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton
Brady bill, AWB 94

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush (43)
Opposes arming airline pilots and is directly responsible for Mineta's
foot dragging and sandbagging the process

Has supported backround checks and has vowed to renew the AWB in its current form.

 

[Jim March]

I dunno. I'll wait and see how the so-called AW bill does (sunsets or not) and I'm also interested in what turn civil liberties/Ashcroft/"Patriot" horsecrap takes.

But lemme tell ya: if Ashcroft continues to run around totally off-leash, if Cheney keeps on doing his best immitation of Emperor Valentine, and Dubya doesn't seem able to stand up to 'em...well, Dean is at minimum going to get a very hard look from me. And if he goes far enough with promises not to get involved in Federal gun-grabbing, AND declares which SANE person he's going to nominate for AG (hint: the last two have been nutcases of the first order!) then he's liable to get my vote.

Now, it's not too late for Bush to regain my support. Dump Ashcroft, fix these crazy Haliburton deals, apologize for the Patriot Act idiocy and for dangsure let the sunset happen, and I'll gladly vote for him again.

 

[Mark Tyson]

I'm with you, Jim March. Dean says he thinks gun control should be a state matter. Though he says he supports the AWB he doesn't sound too enthusiastic about pushing anything new through. If we can keep Congress scared of messing with our gun rights, I think we'll be in good shape. The antis have already come out against him - he owes them nothing.

There's a lot of other issues on the agenda right now. If their hands are tied up with other matters, it will be hard to bring an unpopular issue to the front, especially if they think it's a dangerous loser.

If the ban sunsets, I'd advise everyone to buy as many full capacity magazines as you can quickly, if you're so inclined. The enemies of freedom never sleep...

 

[greyhound]

I dunno, Dean is a leftist Democrat overall. From a personally selfish POV, saying "leave it to the states" does nothing for me, as I live in MD.

Yet I don't see Bush as doing anything for my 2A rights, either.

I just can't help thinking that Dean is full of it and will toe the Democratic/leftist line of taking away all guns once elected. Remember that Vermont's unique firearm laws are in their Constitution and are not something a Governor could change even if they wanted to.

IMHO, the NRA should refuse to endorse ANY major candidate, on the grounds that NONE of them promote their goals. If they have to choose one, make a statement and back the token Libertarian candidate.

 

[rock jock]

Yet I don't see Bush as doing anything for my 2A rights, either.

Well, if you lived in Texas, you'd feel differently. I can carry a concealed handgun in this state because of this man, and I still appreciate that seven years later. I would also add that, despite the criticism of Ashcroft that has become somewhat of a daily exercise on this board, he is the only AG in recent memory that has affirmed the 2A as an individual right.

 

[Jim March]

What it means for the PRESIDENT (or candidate) to say "leave it to the states" is that HE doesn't want any part of signing new gun control.

Since the Prez cannot sign new gun control for the states (or block it at the state level, for that matter) the actual plea to have the states decide gun control is meaningless babble meant to shift attention away from the core position:

"I won't sign new gun control bills."

Now, had he said THAT, would y'all be more in support of Dean?

Instead, he says:

"Leave gun control to the states."



Look again, guys: those are the SAME statements, or at minimum will have the identical effect if honestly pursued by the *President*.

 

[El Rojo]

To sum that idea up: NO!

 

[Mike Irwin]

Let's remember what FPA 86 did for gun owners, though, and not just say that Reagan = Evil for signing it into law.

Had FPA 86 failed, we'd still be signing our names for every stinking box of ammo we purchase, and we wouldn't have the vast flow of surplus firearms that we do today.

The machine gun ban was slipped in at the last minute by Democrats desparate to make it seem as if they were being tough on crime. Given how a line-item veto wasn't an option for the President at the time, it's a rock and a hard place type thing.

It unfortunately came down to a situation where what benefitted the most people the most, and it was really a Catch 22.

Sign it, and have machine gun enthusiasts gibbering about what a gun grabbing fasicommienazi a-hole bastard anti-American prick the president is.

Veto it, and have everyone else, and likely a large segment of the MG owners, gibbering about what a gun grabbing fasicommienazi a-hole bastard anti-American prick the president is.

Take no action on it, and let it come into law a priorie (I think that's the term), and everyone is gibbering.

Why don't people put the blame where it REALLY belongs?

On the hole Democrats who attached the machine gun ban at the last minute, knowing, and hoping, that if the sponsors pulled the bill from that session it likely would NEVER see the light of day again?

Remember, the President isn't a dictator who rules by fiat. That bill got through 535 other people before it got to him for a signature.

 

[Standing Wolf]

If the NRA, and it's 5 million plus members...

People who don't know when to use apostrophes shouldn't attempt to masquerade as journalists.

This site seems to have gone back into extreme slow motion.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Look, here it is in black-and-white: Bush came from a pro-gun state where he signed CCW legislation. Now that he's president of a country divided--but not as divided as the media would have us think-- on gun issues, he's taken a "moderate" to hands-off approach. He knows which side his bread is buttered on, and knows not to tick off gun owners.

Dean also comes from a pro-gun state. Problem is that, like Bush, he will be beholden to certain factions in his party. Bush needs the NRA. Dean needs the wacko left, including the Brady Bunch.

If Bush did indeed sign a renewal of the '94 AWB ban, does anyone for one split second think that Sarah Brady would endorse him? Conversely, does anyone seriously think that Sarah will campaign against Dean?

Regardless of their pronounced stances on the issues, the feminists will run to Dean, the abortion-rights groups will run to Dean, as will the Sierra Club, the NAACP, and every other group whose leaders lean Democrat.

Likewise, the NRA will run to Bush, as will the right-to-life groups, the conservative Christians, the foreign policy hawks, and every other group whose leaders lean Republican.

Years and years ago, it was possible to vote for a pro-gun Democrat, or a pacifist Republican. The issues and the parties have become so factionalized now that it's near impossible to do either.

 

[Bigjake]

the day the NRA endorces a liberal dem is the day they stop receiving any and all of my support.

 

[ARperson]

Originally posted by Jim March:
What it means for the PRESIDENT (or candidate) to say "leave it to the states" is that HE doesn't want any part of signing new gun control.

Maybe. But's it's the right thing to say, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

Something about an amendment to the Constitution that says if it (the Constitution) doesn't specifically grant a power to Congress, then it automatically belongs to the states.

While gun control is wrong, wrong, wrong wherever it orginates, it should NEVER come from the federales as they have no jurisdiction over it. That being said, in an ideal world, were the states to try to pass this crap, the appeals process should land it in the U.S. Supreme Court where it should be smacked down so quickly.

But we're not in a perfect world, are we?

 

[WvaBill]

Yet I don't see Bush as doing anything for my 2A rights, either.

I for one do not relish the impact an appointment of any Democratic President to SCOTUS will have on my 2A rights. The Senate elections should focus on the need to get Justices for ALL Constitutional Rights. If he does nothing for or against 2A but appoint 1 or more of the ilk of Justice Thomas, he will have done something significant for 2A.

I do not mean to say that any appointments will be pro 2A. If anyone has listened to Thomas speak, compared to Ginsburg, it is obvious which is preferable for those who belief that the Constitution is a forthright document without alot of nonsense (right to abortion, right to place vulgarity in public, separation of Church and State) between the lines.

Many are beginning to reconsider Patriot. Legislation passed in the heat of 911. Where have I heard that decisions based on emotions are often flawed?

 

[Dan from MI]

Dean is on record as supporting the AW ban, supporting the ban on private sales in gun shows, and is opposed to stopping frivolous lawsuits against gun makers.

He's not our friend. He's not a John Kerry, DiFi, or Klintler, but he still sucks.

Bush sucks too for that matter on this, but at least he said he'd sign a bill stopping frivolous lawsuits. If he signs the AW ban though, I won't vote for him. If he doesn't sign it, I'll vote for him.

-----

Lastly, as to the NRA ratings. Mike Irwin - I know firsthand, especially with one particular individual from my state. That's all I'll say.

 

[fallingblock]

I had that same suggestion put to me...

By an old buddy from my University days.
He's a dedicated environmentalist these days, and likes Howard's
pro-green stance .

Dean is not our friend...there is no way he would be able to prevent new gun-grabbing with the Democ-rat party demanding it, and they will demand it.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Conversely, does anyone seriously think that Sarah will campaign against Dean?

The Brady Bunch and the Million Moms have already come out against Dean. He doesn't owe them squat.

the day the NRA endorces a liberal dem is the day they stop receiving any and all of my support.

Even if a liberal Democrat supported the right to bear arms more than a conservative republican?

 

[greyhound]

Now, had he said THAT, would y'all be more in support of Dean?

Still no. He's still a leftist, and would likely raise my taxes so high I couldn't afford any of the guns he's not signing bans for.

I think Monkeyleg's post explains it well. Maybe I was a bit hard on Bush overall, but playing the moderate doesn't help those of us in ultra anti states. Though to be sure, most of the change has to come from us throwing the elite leftist out of the state legislatures.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Note that the only thing being asked is that the NRA support Dean in the Democratic primary. Knowing most Democrats, this could actually be a ploy by a Dean hater to sink his campaign rather than help it though.

Dean has already acknowledged his A-rating as Governor of Vermont and when the media asked him if that meant the NRA would support him over Bush he answered that no, the NRA would go with Bush over him. This was a long time ago, so Dean knows the score there.

Frankly, I think it is absolutely in our best interest to make sure that the most pro-gun Democrat is the one who wins the primary. Dean may not be pro-gun by our standards; but you don't see Dianne Feinstein cheering him on either.

The more we can encourage Democrats to stand up for us, the less we will have to worry about the Republicans backstabbing us on some critical legislation like the AWB.

 

[MrAcheson]

In 1992, I remember Bill Clinton being championed as a "moderate" as opposed to the "ultra-conservative" Bush, Sr. 11 Years later we now know that while Clinton did pass some conservative legislation after he lost congress, he was hardly moderate.

I think we will find that Dean is similar. Its possible that Dean could be a Democrat in the same way that TR was a republican (DINO as opposed to RINO), but I doubt it. Since he supports the AWB, he obviously doesn't think that gun control is only an issue for the states. Its just an issue he doesn't want to deal with because he knows he can't win on it. "Issue for the states" is a convenient way to duck it.

 

[Bill Hook]

And of course the NRA supports enforcement of "all existing gun laws"

And few more will "exist" after Dean gets in as President (God, no!).

Wasn't Comrade Gore an "A" list candidate for the NRA? That proves it's a worthless designation right there.

 

[Jim March]

Well...there's a HUGE difference in Gore's case.

Gore changed so much between 1988 and 2000 it's just pathetic.

As one example: by 2000 Gore was the darling of the Liberal Elite for, among other things, his widely professed support for gays.

But in his failed 1988 run for the Dem presidencial primary, his Kansas campaign manager was a guy name of Fred Phelps.

Yes, THAT Phelps. The one that runs a bizarre cult misleadingly termed a "baptist church" and hangs out outside of the funerals of AIDS victims with signs reading "GOD HATES FAGS" with his extended family/"congregation"/victims.

It's not just the gay issue - Gore's flip-flops over a SHORT time period are just startling, a clear sign the man has NO moral compass and never did have one.

Yes, Gore did at one time vote reliably pro-gun. He's from Tennessee fer Chrissakes, he'll vote whichever way he thinks will lead to a win to keep feeding at the trough.

Sorry, but, I see NO evidence of that utter lack of moral compass in Dean. On the contrary, I don't agree with the guy on a lot of points but I do respect him.

But Gore?

 

[Bigjake]

Greyhoud said

Still no. He's still a leftist, and would likely raise my taxes so high I couldn't afford any of the guns he's not signing bans for.

That sums it up for me. he is still a leftist, end of story