Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stupid, Stupid NRA Endorses Dem Governor In Ohio And Loses
JoeClarke.Net ^ | 11/03/2010 | JoeClarke.Net

Posted on 11/03/2010 6:08:20 AM PDT by joeclarke

I have been hearing a lot of talk in the past couple of years by gun owners - like members of Gun Owners Of America and Ohioans For Concealed Carry, and even NRA people that, possibly, the National Rifle Associations was getting a bit too big for its holster, ie. the NRA has become a PAC of bureaucrats who are more becoming like what the AARP is to oldsters - losing its mind.

The NRA endorsed the Democrat incumbent Governor Ted Strickland over a more conservative John Kasich who in years past did not have the best record on Second Ammendment issues. Even though Kasich turned around on his understanding of the Right To Bear Arms Ammendment in the Bill of Rights, the NRA inexplicably spent a whole lot of gun owner money on last minute commercials which nearly deep sixed John Kasich.

I cannot believe that NRA members are that much of a one-issue group, but the staff and honchos at the NRA have been attempting to portray the rank and file rifle owner as some dumb dunce who would rather vote for a Democrat who promoted a member of Handgun Control Inc. (Lee Fisher, Strickland's Lieutenant Governor) and a defiantly anti gun Yvette McGee Brown, Strickland's running mate for governor. Kasich won, anyway, and the NRA has gunpowder on its face.

Late in his campaign for reelection as governor, Ted Strickland got a lot of publicity for taking a sudden interest in taking shooting lessons - with his wife. I do want to thank the Governor for his endorsing the Castle Doctrine in our great state of Ohio, but how could we have supported a man who has such close political and media friends (mostly liberal Democrats) who are so anti Second Ammendment?

Did Strickland promise the NRA something we don't know about?

TOPICS: Government; History; Military/Veterans; Politics
KEYWORDS: 2ndammendment; democrats; elections; nra
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: joeclarke

Kasich had, I think a “B” rating from NRA. Not sure on GOA.

What was Strickland’s rating, or do they even rate governors?

21 posted on 11/03/2010 7:34:04 AM PDT by meyer (Hey Obama - It's the end of the world as you know it.... ..... and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: griswold3
Strickland got the endorsement of the Ohioans for Concealed Carry PAC and the Buckeye Firearms Association as well as the NRA. Ohio has a history of Republicans who are unfriendly to gun rights. Usually the Democrats are even less friendly, but Strickland is the exception to that rule.

Strickland is not a conservative. He is a liberal who happens to support gun rights, and he has a proven voting record to back it up. Kasich has claimed to see the light. I guess we will see if his was a conversion of expedience.

I wouldn't personally vote for Strickland, but he deserves the endorsements over Kasich by gun rights groups. He has stuck by gun owners even though doing so can't have been popular within his own party. He has proven himself on gun rights, and these are gun rights organizations.

Have gun rights organizations been infiltrated by progressives? As long as they support run rights, why shouldn't they be welcome in those organizations. Invite them in. Maybe we can slowly talk some sense into them.

22 posted on 11/03/2010 7:42:59 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Kasich has a C- from the Buckeye Firearms Association. I believe his most recent rating from the NRA is a B. He apparently saw the light not long ago and has brought up his NRA rating. His past ratings were apparently lower.

I would not consider him a reliable supporter of gun rights.

Strickland is a reliable supporter of gun rights, but he's liberal on just about everything else.

23 posted on 11/03/2010 7:47:14 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: joeclarke
They also supported Pomeroy in ND. Which made no sense because the statement was that Pomeroy was against an Assault Weapons Ban, when that nit had voted FOR the original one and was a real pusbag about it.

I think the NRA needs to clean house in the political vetting department, because they backed a lot of people who have been openly hostile to the RKBA in the past, and not one of them has had a genuine 'come to Jesus' moment on the issue since. It's as if whoever was picking candidates to back had no memory back more than 10 years.

24 posted on 11/03/2010 7:47:59 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
So, if the NRA sticks to its mission and supports those they deem the most 2nd Amendment friendly candidates, regardless of the letter after the candidate’s name, isn’t that showing a little integrity?

It would be if at least one of the people they endorsed didn't have a sh*tty voting record on the RKBA, including voting for the AWB under Clinton.

But when a single-issue organization blatantly doesn't do their homework, they become no issue, and my donations to them go the same route.

25 posted on 11/03/2010 7:50:32 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: joeclarke

The NRA has supported EVERY gun control law that has come down the pike. They claim as long as people can have “shooting sports” they suport the gun control laws. They refuse to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment is about tyranny.

26 posted on 11/03/2010 8:24:02 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
That organisation alone is probably responsible for stealing several victories from conservative Republicans last night,......

The NRA helped to reelect Harry Reid!!!!!

27 posted on 11/03/2010 8:58:46 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: joeclarke
My recollection is there were five key house races where the NRA supported Dems:

1) GA8 - Jim Marshall (D) vs. Austin Scott (R) GOP pick up

2) VA2 - Glenn Nye (D) vs. Scott Rigell (R) GOP pick up

3) MD1 - Frank Kratovil (D) vs. Andy Harris (R) GOP pick up

4) MS1 - Travis Childress (D) vs. Alan Nunnebee (R) GOP pick up

5) AL2 - Bobby Bright (D) vs. Martha Roby (R) GOP pick up

Looks like 0-5 for the NRA. Screw 'em, I will not be re-upping next year!

28 posted on 11/03/2010 12:45:11 PM PDT by PDMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joeclarke

NRA: Not Really American.

The NRA has suported and campaigned for each and every gun control law since the turn of the century. Here is the article from the March 1968 edition of their magazine, AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE. They explain how they are for gun control laws.

97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws

Associate Editor

“I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country.”

“The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns...”

— American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.

Terming Kennedy’s accusation “a smear of a great American organization,” NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that “The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871.”

A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.

“The duty of Congress is clear,” Orth said, “it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails.”

“The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition...”

— American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.

Here is the record over the years:

Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.

Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the “mail order murder” to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.

Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.

Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.

“NRA supported the original ‘Dodd Bill’ to amend the Federal Firearms Act...”

— American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd’s attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:

The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.

The NRA supported the original “Dodd Bill” to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.

In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.

“Senator Kennedy’s ‘terrible indictment’ of the NRA is groundless.”

— American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 23

The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.

NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:

1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.

2. Place “destructive devices” (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.

3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.

4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the .......

CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
(March 1968)

purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;

b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;

c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;

d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;

e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;

f. increasing penalties for violation.

Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:

“A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State.”

The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.

When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:

NRA Secretary Daniel

“The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction—that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois.”

The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.

Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy’s “terrible indictment” of the NRA is groundless.

29 posted on 11/04/2010 12:23:29 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joeclarke

Conservatives won inspite of the NRA. In my state, 2 NRA endorsed Democrats went down in flames and were replaced with conservative Republicans.

IMHO, the NRA needs to stop endorsing candidates. Just give us background info and a rating, like they do now. But no endorsements.

30 posted on 11/04/2010 1:21:20 PM PDT by A. Patriot (CZ 52's ROCK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson