NRA effectiveness questioned on Huffington Post.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The terrible thing about her trash is that she usually uses unfair tactics like facts

Facts are especially powerful when you omit the ones that don't fit the narrative, like in this example where they fail to mention that several of the NRA-supported candidates were beaten by Democrats running on a Second Amendment platform that included things like support for semi-auto weapons, no restrictions on private sales and other things the Brady's oppose.

Of course, this should be no surprise since Huffington didn't write a word of that press release. Instead it is a verbatim reprinting of the Brady press release on the election. They are trying to reclaim some badly damaged credibility from previous elections.

And for those who think the NRA is powerless, well it certainly isn't powerful enough to save the Republicans from their own foolish policy and corruption; but it is a long way from powerless. I hope the Brady group really believes what they are selling. It will make our jobs that much easier.

 

[Hyunchback]

Bartholomew Roberts wrote:

Instead it is a verbatim reprinting of the Brady press release on the election. They are trying to reclaim some badly damaged credibility from previous elections.

That's exactly what they were trying to do. Frankly, it's not the NRA or even gun owners who need to tell them to shut their yaps. It's the newly elected Democrats.

In the majority of the seats that changed the candidates were usually avoiding answering questions regarding RKBA or were making solid RKBA statements.

If the Brady bunch can claim any hand in the victory it's by keeping their mouths shut.

 

[billwiese]

It appears that - gunrights-wise - we're in roughly the same shape as before the election, which isn't a bad place to be.

Many of the R's that got displaced by D's were displaced by pro-gun D's. Well -knonw antigunners are in 'safe seats' or were replaced by antigunners, which is to be expected given nature of these districts.

In California, it appears that our legislature may have less of an antigun tilt. Last year, NOT A SINGLE GUN CONTROL BILL was enacted, and our odds are better now (though we can't get complacent, and have to fight battles with CA DOJ Firearms Division now).



Bill Wiese
San Jose

 

[RealGun]

Many of the R's that got displaced by D's were displaced by pro-gun D's.

19 displaced by 6 to be more precise. In the Senate it was a 3 for 3 trade. Note that none of those new Ds is proven once in Washington, so an A rating is a one for one trade only at face value.

 

[DonP]

Arianna - Huffpo

Arianna is a real piece of work, an immigrant, married a rich American businessman, that turned out to be gay, then divorced him and took more than half of his fortune to keep the public embarassment to a minimum, then ran as a Republican candidate for Governor of California, then decided she wasn't really conservative and became a far left liberal blogger.

Yeah, that's the kind of stability and belief system I can look up to.

Huff Po is basically "Daily Kos/DU lite", The material is not hers, as far as I can tell (Heck, even "her" book was ghost written). It's just kind of a bulletin board that she and her web master use to encourage far left people to post anything and everything.

The right wing didn't embrace and adore her after she tried for a few years, so she'll try the lefties for a while. Heck, they even embrace Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin, so she stands a good chance of being a superhero with them, for a while anyway.

As previously noted, this item is a direct Brady press release pick-up and not worth the electronic paper it's not printed on. If you want to call a Brady press release "facts" you just might be in the wrong place.

The NRA had a lot of "D"'s they endorsed in this round of elections, at State, Local and at Federal levels. They have NEVER endorsed an F or D rated Republican over an A rated Democrat. Stop relying on DU for your "facts".

The NRA is a single issue interest group. They don't care about a candidate's stand on immigration, right to life, or managing the Federal Reserve. The reason the Brady's and the other phony "gun groups" hate and fear the NRA is because that are all really anti funded and supported (e.g. AHSA et. al.) by a small handful of gun control fanatics, e.g. one or two big checks a year, no real ground game at election time..

The NRA has about 3.5 (?) million dues paying members, with families and friends that are shooters but may not be NRA members that are all actively engaged in political matters relating to their hobby-sport. They vote regularly and can be mobilized at a local level so the politicians, even the gun grabbers, have to respect and fear that kind of grass roots support. I believe that, next to AARP, they represent the single largest issue driven US voting bloc.

That's what ticks off Brady, with their little tiny, and basically anonymous, membership. They are straining for relevance with their reduced staff, cut budgets and I doubt they can get their phone calls to congress returned, even from the new Blue Dog Democrats.

 

[real_name]

DonP, I'm not standing up for Huffington per se but what has her being an immigrant got to do with anything?
You just came across as xenophobic, intolerant and racist.
She might (or might not) be the devil in a dress but that isn't because she was born in Greece.
I was born outside the USA, I'm a citizen now. It is possible to be of foreign blood and love this country.
Ask yourself where your family tree started. It surely wasn't this continent.

 

[RealGun]

The NRA had a lot of "D"'s they endorsed in this round of elections, at State, Local and at Federal levels. - DonP

Federal should stand alone, because it wasn't "a lot". 16 pro-gun incumbents and 1 open seat (Lampson (D-TX)), which was Tom Delay's vacated seat. Sekula-Gibbs, an A rated Republican and serving the very short remainder of Delay's term, was at a disadvantage because she could only run as a write-in. It would appear that NRA chose to be on good terms with the likely winner, who would deserve and appreciate the support, a favor to be paid back later.

 

[MechAg94]

You just came across as xenophobic, intolerant and racist.

Insinuating she is a gold digger maybe, but none of those I would guess. I think you are in the process of a knee-jerk reaction. Chill out.

I don't like her because she had her fortune in tax free bonds while backing ideas to raise taxes on the rich which she won't have to pay. I think Rush mentioned those "facts" a fews years ago.

 

[real_name]

Mech, I'm far from unchilled, I just don't use the inane smilies to indicate my online mood.
And concentrating on someone being an immigrant during an attack on that person is xenophobic, no race card was ever hinted at.
Learn to read.

 

[DonP]

Racist?

Since when does stating a basic fact make you a racist or a xenophobe? It's a part of who she is and how she got to where she is today. As already suggested, you might want to dial down the "automatic liberal outrage" meter a bit.

My point was that based on the woman's background, she is really not stable or terribly well qualified to do much of anything, except for possibly being a rich man's trophy wife and "beard" a few years back.

FWIW, my great-grandfather was an immigrant, the old fashioned legal kind.

My great-grandmother, OTOH, was a native American and she wants all you trespassing white eyes to get off her property right now dammit!

 

[DHard3006]

NRA will always

The NRA will always compromise because the NRA defends gun control laws. The goal of any rights hating organization like the gun haters (aka Sarah Brady's Brady campaign)is to first get your opposition to accept limits on the right they want to ban. The gun haters have succeeded in getting the NRA to defend gun control laws. The next step for the gun haters will be to ban the right that NRA claims to be defending.
Gun control laws only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
The leftist aka progressives are still out to ban the right to bear arms.

 

[gunsmith]

Arianna has seen fit to not post any of my comments

I've written some very good counter arguments and I'm quite sure a few of you have as well.
Easy enough to do as most here know more about the
COTUS & 2ND Amendment history then most history professors & lawyers.

I can not understand why she won't allow opposing opinions on her website.