Headline in NY Times: Trump Meets With LaPierre to Discuss How NRA Could Support Political Defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

roscoe

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
2,852
Location
NV
Admittedly political, but I am keeping this about RKBA.

So, in my opinion, this is how gun owners lose. If we attach ourselves to a single person, or party, and this ship goes down, then we lose in a big way. The NRA should be involved in outreach to people of every party, persuasion, class, religion, color, gender, sexuality, etc, rather than participating in a political defense that has nothing to do with RKBA.

Maybe this will not result in a huge mess, but imagine allying yourself with Nixon in summer 1974.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/us/politics/trump-lapierre-nra-impeachment.html
 
Strategically, I agree with you, but: Until someone can dig up a meaningful Democrat who isn't a racing to propose new infringements as fast as they can invent them, it's a moot point.

I would be delighted to see positive feedback from NRA on Democratic candidates. . . but only if there's something positive to say. AFAIK, at the National level, there's nothing positive to say.
 
roscoe said:
The NRA needs to stay out of this. Even if Trump goes, Pence is still a pro-RKBA president. Why get into this fight? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
That's because you don't get the 20th century history of gun control. This nonsense that the NRA is "arm of the Republican Party" is just that, nonsense. It was the left and the Democrat party who made this a wedge issue, and logically, the NRA became inhabited by more Republicans and Conservatives. Later, some of the Left and Democrats decided that they wanted guns too and started whining that the NRA was an "arm of the Republican Party" after tagging it as "right wing" for years. You can't have it both ways without ignoring history, since the past really is prologue.
 
roscoe said:
So, in my opinion, this is how gun owners lose. If we attach ourselves to a single person, or party, and this ship goes down, then we lose in a big way. The NRA should be involved in outreach to people of every party, persuasion, class, religion, color, gender, sexuality, etc, rather than participating in a political defense that has nothing to do with RKBA.
Click to expand...
What is being reported is that Trump met with LaPierre and they discussed a quid pro quo in which the NRA would make a huge contribution to Trump's 2020 campaign and/or impeachment defense, in exchange for Trump dropping all gun control. This goes beyond making the NRA an arm of the Republican party, and makes it part of Trump's personal barony.

The timing of this is terrible. What happens if Trump is forced out of office early next year, Pence becomes president, and then Pence and a host of others vie for the Republican nomination? That would leave the NRA with no clout in the process, and tied to a discredited president. The NRA should have at least waited until the landscape became clearer.
 
Deanimator said:
I refuse to sully myself with the risible fairy tale that anyone of any importance in the Democrat Party is anything but RABIDLY in favor of racially invidious gun controls.
Click to expand...
What about other players, besides Trump, in the Republican party?
 
SharpDog said:
And here we have it:

Another rant on the NRA
Another rant on Trump
Another attempt to justify voting Democrat in 2020

Remind me again how this is not political ?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. No rants, no statements about Trump, no mention of the Democratic party - really just observations on political strategy. Right now WLP is playing the short game, with a huge potential downside. We need to play the long game, otherwise we will lose over the long term.
 
Deanimator said:
I refuse to sully myself with the risible fairy tale that anyone of any importance in the Democrat Party is anything but RABIDLY in favor of racially invidious gun controls.
Click to expand...
Even Manchin? Or he is not "anyone of any importance"? (I'm not being snarky, I really don't know if or how much influence he has. But he is about the only one that doesn't seem totally crazy to me.)
 
Charlie Horse said:
That's because you don't get the 20th century history of gun control. This nonsense that the NRA is "arm of the Republican Party" is just that, nonsense. It was the left and the Democrat party who made this a wedge issue, and logically, the NRA became inhabited by more Republicans and Conservatives. Later, some of the Left and Democrats decided that they wanted guns too and started whining that the NRA was an "arm of the Republican Party" after tagging it as "right wing" for years. You can't have it both ways without ignoring history, since the past really is prologue.
Click to expand...

It is kind of weird that you and Deanimator don't get that I am not criticizing the Republican party. I never mentioned either party in the original post. As I noted, Pence is would be the next president. I am just pointing out that the NRA has intervened in a fight that is completely outside its remit, with a huge potential downside. The upside of seeming above such a political fray is long-term credibility, and the downside of stepping into this mess is a substantial loss of credibility, even among Republicans.
 
This is one of LaPierre’s many faults. Dems are pretty much all committed to “gun control”, but some are in states or districts where they have to moderate that. But by openly aligning the NRA to the Republican Party or to the President, he gives those pols a powerful out. The NRA needs to be a single issue organization that makes it clear to pols that it will support Satan himself if it will protect the Second Amendment, advance civilian marksmanship, and further gun safety.
 
I get what you said, but you don't seem to understand politics as played out.

1. When one party makes up fanciful fairy tales to impeach a president, said president goes and rallies his base.
2. You referenced Nixon, which had no bearing on this at all.
3. In past posts, you have expressed the "NRA is arm of the Republican Party" line. Until you come to terms with how we got here, and hang that albatross around the proper neck, you cannot speak with credibility.
4. Guns are a political issue. We have to accept that reality and react accordingly.
 
Charlie Horse said:
I get what you said, but you don't seem to understand politics as played out.

1. When one party makes up fanciful fairy tales to impeach a president, said president goes and rallies his base.
2. You referenced Nixon, which had no bearing on this at all.
3. In past posts, you have expressed the "NRA is arm of the Republican Party" line. Until you come to terms with how we got here, and hang that albatross around the proper neck, you cannot speak with credibility.
4. Guns are a political issue. We have to accept that reality and react accordingly.
Click to expand...

I am comfortable with my level of credibility.
 
old lady new shooter said:
Even Manchin? Or he is not "anyone of any importance"? (I'm not being snarky, I really don't know if or how much influence he has. But he is about the only one that doesn't seem totally crazy to me.)
Click to expand...
I'm of 2 minds about Manchin. On the one hand, he is nominally pro gun, but on the other, he supports a party that is not, and adds to their seat count for majorities and such.
 
roscoe said:
In the words of warrior/philosopher/fitness enthusiast John J. Rambo, 'you drew first blood'.
Click to expand...
Now you're going to descend into "you started it?"

No, we are playing for all the marbles here. If this impeachment fantasy goes the distance, they will try it again on a President Pence. You think they hate Donald Trump? You ain't seen nothing yet. It only makes sense for a President under these circumstances to line up his defenses. The fact that you start a thread and admit in the first sentence it will be political and then prove you don't understand the way these things work is just plain silly. Then when you are called on the clear implication, you whine, or are you willing to admit that the wedge issue was created by the Left in the Democrat Party?
 
roscoe said:
In the words of warrior/philosopher/fitness enthusiast John J. Rambo, 'you drew first blood'.
Click to expand...

No I think you did by starting this entire thread.

Perhaps you can explain why a deal to block gun legislation "has nothing to do with the RKBA"

I think this entire thread is an attempt to stir up political sympathy for your views.
 
Charlie Horse said:
I'm of 2 minds about Manchin. On the one hand, he is nominally pro gun, but on the other, he supports a party that is not, and adds to their seat count for majorities and such.
Click to expand...

Manchin is a ranking member on Energy & Commerce (No. 1 Dem), Tester is former chairman of the Senate re-election committee. Heitkamp was defeated in ‘18 but was also reasonably reliable on gun rights before going left at the end of her campaign. Angus King and Susan Collins of Maine, one who pretends to be Independent and the other who pretends to be a Republican, have to pretend that they oppose further infringement on the Second Amendment because Maineiacs still support RKBA. Bernie Sanders, who pretends he’s a Democrat, used to get good rating from the NRA, voted for the PLCAA and was defending it after Sandy Hook, because until recently, Vermont was solidly pro-RKBA.

All politicians are liars. But they can be manipulated into doing the right thing. LaPierre makes this harder.
 
DocRock said:
Manchin is a ranking member on Energy & Commerce (No. 1 Dem), Tester is former chairman of the Senate re-election committee. Heitkamp was defeated in ‘18 but was also reasonably reliable on gun rights before going left at the end of her campaign. Angus King and Susan Collins of Maine, one who pretends to be Independent and the other who pretends to be a Republican, have to pretend that they oppose further infringement on the Second Amendment because Maineiacs still support RKBA. Bernie Sanders, who pretends he’s a Democrat, used to get good rating from the NRA, voted for the PLCAA and was defending it after Sandy Hook, because until recently, Vermont was solidly pro-RKBA.

All politicians are liars. But they can be manipulated into doing the right thing. LaPierre makes this harder.
Click to expand...

upload_2019-9-27_21-32-18.png
https://www.usresistnews.org/2019/0...o-take-your-ar-15-gun-control-ideas-for-2020/
 
DocRock said:
Manchin is a ranking member on Energy & Commerce (No. 1 Dem), Tester is former chairman of the Senate re-election committee. Heitkamp was defeated in ‘18 but was also reasonably reliable on gun rights before going left at the end of her campaign. Angus King and Susan Collins of Maine, one who pretends to be Independent and the other who pretends to be a Republican, have to pretend that they oppose further infringement on the Second Amendment because Maineiacs still support RKBA. Bernie Sanders, who pretends he’s a Democrat, used to get good rating from the NRA, voted for the PLCAA and was defending it after Sandy Hook, because until recently, Vermont was solidly pro-RKBA.

All politicians are liars. But they can be manipulated into doing the right thing. LaPierre makes this harder.
Click to expand...
So? Any Democrat who does anything pro gun has to get permission from leadership. None of this is new.

LaPierre is doing the political thing, because when the dust settles, and this impeachment fiasco is ended, you want to be on the right side. An unsuccessful impeachment will hurt those who started it. By siding with the president, LaPierre is reminding him who his base is, and making it easier to stand with us and harder to stand against.
 
Charlie Horse said:
Now you're going to descend into "you started it?"

No, we are playing for all the marbles here. If this impeachment fantasy goes the distance, they will try it again on a President Pence. You think they hate Donald Trump? You ain't seen nothing yet. It only makes sense for a President under these circumstances to line up his defenses. The fact that you start a thread and admit in the first sentence it will be political and then prove you don't understand the way these things work is just plain silly. Then when you are called on the clear implication, you whine, or are you willing to admit that the wedge issue was created by the Left in the Democrat Party?
Click to expand...

You are are again incorrect. Present circumstances are Trump-specific. There was no attempt to impeach Bush II, Bush I, Reagan, or any Republican since Andrew Johnson. The larger discussion of who moved from the 'center' is far outside what we should be discussing here at THR, but I can assure you I lived through it, and the various alliances we see on the left and right largely were absent a mere 40 years ago, and may well shift again. By playing so strongly to a single individual who does not actually represent anything, except himself, exposes the RKBA to the weaknesses of that individual, and does not speak to a coherent philosophical perspective. BTW - you infer that I am a Democrat. That is also incorrect.

Finally, you engage in a lot of ad hominem arguments. Those are not acceptable here at THR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top