NRA to expand lobbying to other conservative causes

Status
Not open for further replies.
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)
Click to expand...

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
  • 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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That sums it all up.
 
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.
 
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.
 
gc70 said:
The CNN article is a hatchet job on the NRA and part of a smear campaign against corporate supporters of Stand Your Ground laws.
Click to expand...
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."
 
Neverwinter said:
The work that ALEC has done encompasses a broader scope of questionable laws than just Stand Your Ground
Click to expand...

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

+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.
 
I'll have to keep my eye out for any big changes like this but hopefully it's all exagerated/nonsense.
 
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.
Click to expand...

You know, 6+ years is an unusually long time delay for policies to have an economic impact. Normally, the effects are visible within 2-4 years. The raw figures from Reagan show modest increases in revenue, dramatic increases in debt, raised regressive taxes, and increased poverty.

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

This sums it up pretty well.

fiscal-conservatives-808.jpg
 
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.
 
^ I'd prefer to use the terms Liberal and Conservative to apply to fiscal policy. A fiscal conservative doesn't take out loans he can't afford. He doesn't take revenue cuts he can't afford. He doesn't embark on projects he can't afford. He doesn't make purchases he can't afford.

I'd much rather that the labels Traditionalist and Reformer apply to social policy. Lastly, Libertarian and Authoritarian ought to be the terms for policies not relating to fiscal spending or social issues. The dual labels of liberal and conservative cover o much ground that it can be difficult to actually understand what a person's perspective is.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one who makes a distinction between "conservative" and Republican ?
Click to expand...

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."
 
Am I the only one who makes a distinction between "conservative" and Republican ?
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ragnar Danneskjold said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Why the NRA must be stopped.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Al Thompson
A
C
  • Locked
Obama's "OFA" PAC a Serious Threat
Replies
7
Views
1K
oneounceload
O
J
  • Locked
AHSA staff member rips up NRA
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Huddog
H
M
  • Locked
NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
7K
carebear
C
R
  • Locked
Please Remember Your Priorities
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Rimmer
R
Back
Top