NRA/Why is it?

[jefnvk]

Why is it that Democrats seem to think that the NRA is simply a pro-Republican organization out to upset Democrats at any cost? Why is it hard for them to understand that the NRA endorses based on the candidates stance on guns and nothing else? Why is it that they think that Democrats who support gun rights won't get nominated?

Why can't they just understand that the ratings are based on gun rights, and if Democrats would change their stance, they'd get nominated as much as the Republicans?

 

[ralphie98]

sounds like you just had a fun conversation with an "ultra liberal" or read something on the 'net from one of them.

My guess is that it's because of all the NRA members/gun nuts who go on and on about liberal DUMB-o-crats... yadda, yadda, yadda (yep, I'm guilty of that). They are maybe associating what the members think of Democrats with how the NRA actually works.

 

[Sunray]

Your Democrats are like our Liberals. They think that everything and everybody is out to get them. They both think that there's one law for them and one for everybody else too.
And we don't want Detroit. Your side got it back through the Treaty of Ghent and now you're stuck with it. We don't want Buffalo either.

 

[Doctor Suarez]

I'm mostly a Democrat, and I just joined the NRA!

It drives me crazy as well. My family is all GFW, and they don't know about my pursuits. When they talk about the NRA, they treat it like it was the Klan. They misunderstand the NRA's position, and they actually misunderstand the Democrats' position as well.

My dad says that the Democrats' party line on guns should be that "The only difference between us and the NRA is that we want to keep guns away from criminals, children, and the insane." It's a good line, but it's a total falsehood. The NRA engages in child-safety, supports background checks, and, if you'll remember, they endorsed Howard Dean for governor.

Meanwhile, the Dems are far more gun-grabby than that line suggests. And if you think they're bad nationally, come live in California some time.

What makes Democrats crazy is that they've taken their own gun-grabbiness as a given. And since the NRA is the most vocal, powerful opponent of this, they can't help but mistake them for pure Republicans. You must have spoken to someone from a Blue State. There are many Democrats who have their heads screwed on straight about guns, and the NRA makes nice with them.

It's the same kind of thinking that makes people upset when the Catholic Church picks a pope who fully believes in strict Catholicism. This organization has one job, and that's what it's going to do. It can't perform every duty and take a position on every issue. Asking the NRA to worry about a candidate's stance on abortion is like asking your TV to make you a cappucino.

 

[Barbara]

I hang out on an almost exclusively liberal board and they're generally supportive of the second amendment. You occasionally hear someone channeling Sarah Brady but not too often.

In my experience, the NRA goes out of their way to support Dems who are even minimally supportive of gun rights.

 

[Standing Wolf]

When they talk about the NRA, they treat it like it was the Klan.

New member Doctor Suarez just answered the question. Well said!

The Democratic (sic) party rants and raves and screams and shrills at the top of its lungs about everything. It's been on maximum indignation and volume since the 1960s.

America has done quite a bit of growing up since then. We've grown a bit bored with temper tantrums and little boys crying wolf five times a day and the race card being played every time some self-important nitwit gets up on the wrong side of the bed. The sky isn't falling. Everything isn't a dastardly plot. The nation has more important matters on its mind than free abortions and wedding rings for homosexuals.

Asking the NRA to worry about a candidate's stance on abortion is like asking your TV to make you a cappucino.

Bite your tongue! If Bill Gates hears about that, he'll detail a whole team of Microsoft senior product managers to make that happen—with a Windows user interface, of course.

 

[jefnvk]

sounds like you just had a fun conversation with an "ultra liberal" or read something on the 'net from one of them.

Actually, just got off DU.

I am partly suprised, because most of them on that board are no different than us here on THR. There was a thread on if we could repeal the NFA, making MG's the same as any other weapon, would they. The majority response was a 'yes, but we'd start with a repeal of the 86 MG ban'. Then they turn around and talk about the NRA like it is some Republican demon bent on destroying Democrats.

I just can't understand the logic. It would be like me saying that the Brady Bunch is simply out to kill Republicans, they are just a lobbying arm of the Democrats. I know that is not true, that they will support anti-gun Republicans, and not support pro-gun Democrats.

Asking the NRA to worry about a candidate's stance on abortion is like asking your TV to make you a cappucino.

Wow, I thought TV's were pretty much useless, but if that were to happen, I'd know for sure (not a coffee person). Good analogy, though.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

ONE extreme Dem position is that, outside the Military, only Police should be allowed to own guns.

I often wonder...for those who embrace this ridiculous position (A/K/A A lot of blue staters and Europeans) -- who do they expect to train the Police in firearms safety and proficiency?

http://www.nrahq.org/law/index.asp

 

[GT]

Nice arguments, but missing the point. Here is the point:

Professional anti-gun folks are Socialists

Most Democrats are Socialists (and worse)

Most Republicans are not Socialists

NRA is pro gun therefore anti-Socialist.

NRA is therefore anti-Democrat in most cases and pro-Republican in most cases.


The Second Amendment isn't simply an opportunity for Socialists to consider the nuances and probe the penumbra; it is the one right that guarantees all the others.

Socialists do not believe in rights for "citizens"


Nice to hear about all the merry Democrats (sic) who purport to be gung-ho weapons fans, but I am afraid the empirical evidence says otherwise.


G

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Why is it--?

Maybe because EVERY recent -- and proposed/new -- piece of Gun Control legislation (no matter how insipid... and driven by emotional appeals to ballistic-illiterates) is authored by Democrats.

Sure, some "liberals" own guns and champion firearms rights, but THEY are a demographic rarity. I salute those rare birds, but I also challenge them to "come out of the closet" with their fellow liberal-Democrats... and ask them all to place Second Amendment rights (for Sporting Purposes AND Self-Defense AND Resistance to Tyranny/Abuse of Power) on equal footing with the REST of the Bill of Rights. There's often a price one pays for such outspoken political candor, and it takes a real measure of courage to do so -- in front of friends, fellow employees, bosses, and social acquaintances. I know. I've "seen that movie" -- and so have many boldly pro-2A conservatives and Republicans -- and we have the scars to prove it.

The undeniable fact is -- Gun Control (and, now, "ammo control") is 99% the exclusive domain of Blue-state urban liberal politicians seeking to assuage their ballistically-clueless liberal/pacifist constituents. The other 1% is comprised of gutless RINO-pols seeking to keep their jobs by fuzzy appeals to variants of the same (above) clueless voter constituency.

National Dem chairman Howard Dean thinks he can fake-out some uninformed, easily-swayed Red-state "moderates" with his disingenuous "gun control is no longer an issue" announcement. If that's the case, how come it's Dem-pols who are behind the current disarmament moves in California and Illinois (just two examples)? Does anyone have ANY doubt that, if those legislative moves succeed, we'll see MORE Dem-pols pushing that same anti-2A fiction in other states... and on a national level?

If it quacks like a duck -- it is.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

How easy is it to "Keep and Bear Arms" in Democratically-controlled New York, Boston, Washington D.C., Chicago, California?

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

Dems are just playing an RKBA waiting game. (It's not moving right now...but is that a CAMEL over in the corner of the tent?)

 

[Gabby Hayes]

... Democrats ... think ...

Ah, now I'm beginning to see where you're going wrong.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

ReadyontheRight, you are dead-bang correct.

That IS a camel over there in the corner of the tent. However, since Dr. Howard Dean put lipstick on it, he's hoping we won't notice the Big-Ugly behind that, ummm... pretty face.

Its smell still gives it away.

 

[Barbara]

Actually so many of them hate GWB, they're starting to understand what the 2nd Amendment is really for. It's kind of cute but I'm not really scared of Revolution yet.

BTW..aren't the Bradys Republicans?

(I've voted for two Dems in past 8 years, with the balance being Reps or Libertarians. I'm not not a Democrat. But I think this is much more an urban vs. rural issue than a political party issue, based on the Republicans and Democrats I know.)

 

[greyhound]

seems to me the new Democrat strategy is to trot out the "we don't want to take guns away from hunters and sportsmen" line.

Now, I think that's a losing tactic: how many guns owners hunt? 10%?

Let's not forget John "brand new camo" Kerry refusing to carry his own duck out of the field. I can see the stragegy session now: "We need to appeal to the hunters without ticking off the animal rights crowd".

Heck, I might even vote for a moderate Democrat who stood up for RKBA. We have a few of those down South. (note that's a "might").

 

[jefnvk]

BTW..aren't the Bradys Republicans?

Yep, that is why I think my example above stands out good.

I understand that most anti-gun stuff comes from Democrats. And that is why many Democrats will never get supported by the NRA, because they don't support gun rights. I guess I just can't see why they can't understand that the NRA picks candidates solely on their stance on guns. They complain that because the candidate may be good on guns, that they are against Social Security, pro war, anti poor people, pro big business or whatever else, that the NRA shouldn't endorse them. Why can't they understand that the NRA stands for National RIFLE Association, they don't care what other stances their candidates take as long as they are pro-gun.

 

[shermacman]

Doctor Suarez
Not a bad first post, sir!
Welcome aboard!

 

[Rebar]

BTW..aren't the Bradys Republicans?

Jim Brady was a republican, until he got shot in the head.

The simple fact is, the liberal/left has plans for us, that they know we're not going to like. To impliment these plans, they'll have to disarm us first. The NRA thwarts that plan, so they demonize it.

 

[one45auto]

Actually, just got off DU.

Hope you took a shower afterwards and washed your hands.

 

[Doctor Suarez]

Why thank you , Shermacman!

I think the comment about how the issue is urban vs. rural is an excellent one. The nature of cities, which are packed with people who, for one reason or another, are dependent on government services and programs, is what makes them so liberal. Thus, they breed mayors who can best be described as Socialist Dictators. (The exception to that being LA, where they're socialists, but they have almost no power.)

After all, Giuliani and Bloomberg are technically Republicans, but they're some of the biggest gun bigots on Earth. (Giuliani has some GOP cred, but Bloomberg is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who took on the name "Republican" to ride Rudy's coattails.)

To expand my earlier thought:

Poor people in cities need government dole programs, etc, and are thus prone to voting Democrat. Rich people in cities, meanwhile, see every manner of urban problem, from crime to potholes, and, being in a city, expect some manner of government to deal with them. They also see the poorest of the poor in relatively close proximity, and are often driven to wealth redistribution.

The same thinking that government is supposed to take care of these little things permeates their political thinking to the point where government is also supposed to solve all major problems. Meanwhile, rural Americans live without the benefit of massive, corrupt civic agencies, and know that they're going to have to solve their various pecadillos themselves.

Thus, in relation to guns, the exact same pattern of thought emerges. Urban liberals want government to stop the bad men and protect them. And since they aren't taking responsibility for protecting themselves any more than for filling a pothole, they don't want a gun. They only see drug-war related gun crime, and guns are evil.

Rural Americans, meanwhile, know that stopping the bad men and protecting one's self is nobody's job but their own. And they need the tools to do it.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

The Brady's... Republicans?

Jim Brady served in a Republican administration -- as President Reagan's Press Secretary. That means he had a background in journalism -- a profession that's never been a wellspring of pro-gun, ballistically-knowledgeable, conservative sentiment (see ".380 gauge semi-automatic assault revolver" story-thread as the latest/typical example).

He may have been -- or become -- a registered Republican to qualify for this job. I don't know his pre-Reagan political background. However, I DO know, based on personal experience, that it's not unusual for career federal executives to demonstrate their "political synchronicity" by re-aligning their political loyalties (i.e., party affiliation) to get/keep their jobs and enhance promotability -- just another Potomac political game.

I seriously doubt his wife, Sarah, was ever a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. She lives in New Jersey, a state that regularly elects such gun-hostile luminaries as senators Lautenberg and Corzine... a state that prohibits civilian possession of hollow-point ammo... a state where I have an assistant D.A/cousin who thinks ALL semi-automatic guns are "assault weapons." I don't recall Sarah Brady ever appearing on the stage on behalf of any GOP political candidate -- as she has with the Clintons, Rosie O'Donnell, and the gun-grabbing, emotionally over-wrought N.Y. congresswoman, Carolyn McCarthy.

While I regret Jim Brady's horribly unfortunate fate, the Brady's are probably RINOs, at best.

 

[rwc]

Meanwhile, rural Americans live without the benefit of massive, corrupt civic agencies, and know that they're going to have to solve their various pecadillos themselves.

Hmm. You must live in a part of rural America without crop supports, without subsidized irrigation water, without subsidized electricty to pump the "welfare water", and without subsidized telephone service.

Oh, and unlike the rest of rural America, you must voluntarily pay about 120-150% of your assessed state taxes since (unlike the rest of rural America), you actually want to pay the cost of the highways and roads that serve your community.

I'm sorry if the above is somewhat pointed, but every time someone living in a rural community gets self-rightious about how they're great and the urban cesspools suck off the government teat I feel it is incumbant upon me to point out that on a per capita basis rural residents live a far more subsidized existance than your average urban resident. Most of whom, BTW hava a job, pay their taxes, live right, and respect the law.

And yes, I am a Democrat who enjoys his second amendement rights and will defend them.

 

[Doctor Suarez]

Actually, I'm from the cities. I wasn't thinking of actual farmers so much as simply Americans who don't live in a dense, urban center.

Everyone gets screwed to a degree, but urbanites see government as a welcome, neccessary organization, while many people outside cities see it as a parasite.

Just perceptions, not realities.

 

[jefnvk]

The simple fact is, the liberal/left has plans for us, that they know we're not going to like. To impliment these plans, they'll have to disarm us first. The NRA thwarts that plan, so they demonize it.

Probably, in the long run, that is the correct answer.

As far as rural v. urban, I think most rural folks aren't touched by as much direct government involvement. Sure, they get government supported roads. Do they get government supported water? Do they have government built parks in every neighborhood? Are there city ordanances requiring lawns to be kept to a certain standard, and telling you where you can park your car on your property? I think the line is too often simply put at in-city-limits v. outside-city-limits, which I don't agree with. To me, the dividing line between rural and urban, is that rural people could support themselves better if civilization were to collapse.

I had the opportunity to meet in the UP some real rural folk. Not the ones that simply live outside the city limits. Electricity comes from generators, when needed, they grow as much as possible to save on food costs, thir driveway is half a mile long, after a half hour drive to the middle of nowhere, house is a log cabin heated by a wood stove, again to save money. Wood is free, gas/electric heating isn't. If the United States went into a nuclear war with China on a friday afternoon, they probably wouldn't know it until they went to work on Monday. They always pay their taxes, and don't expect an ounce of support from anyone, especially the gov't.

The example doesn't have to be quite that extreme. But I don't consider the millionaire that moves to the country as a rural person, anymore than the old farmer who finds his farm encompassed in an expanding city as a city folk.

 

[Kim]

My momma told me something many years ago that has stuck in my brain. This from a poor family in a rural area who would never accept wefare -----period. She said that SOME rich people act like they feel sorry for and are concerned about poor people ,espically those in cities but, what they really mean is they are afraid. Welfare she said is a code word for a cheap police force to keep the poor people just satisfied enough so(they won't steal them blind) they feel safe and really don't have to deal with the real world. Plus it makes them FEEL good like they have done something grand.(this is a self rationalization of the wrong they Know they are inflicting). The problem is those who buy into the welfare scam(plantation) are no better really than a slave. They have to sell their character and beliefs for a welfare check.(Sounds like Howard Dean to me) Needless to say my mother and father put four children and one momma through college without welfare and we are all better off because of it.